Southern Region Olive Fruit Fly Project 2018

2017-2018 ANNUAL REPORT

2565 alluvial ave., suite 152 clovis, ca 93611 (p) 559-456-9096 (f) 456-9099 [email protected] www.calolive.org

Table of Contents SECTION I- ADMINISTRATIVE Message from Executive Director...... 3 Chairman’s Corner...... 4 Board of Directors...... 5 All About Ripe Olives...... 6 COC Information...... 8 COC Staff...... 9 District Map...... 10 Assessment Rates & Budget...... 11 SECTION II- STRATEGIC PLANNING Summary...... 17 Strategic Plan...... 18

SECTION III- INSPECTION Inspection Summary...... 35 Incoming Inspection Chart...... 36 Outgoing Inspection Chart...... 37 Food Safety Modernization Act...... 38

SECTION IV- RESEARCH 2017-2018 Research Summary...... 41 Evaluation of New Chemistries to Control Olive Fruit Fly...... 43 Epidemiology and Management of Olive Knot Caused by Pseudomonas savastanoi pv. savastanoi...... 66 Management of Foliar Diseases of Olive...... 76 New Fruit Removal Head for an Olive Harvesting System...... 80 Olive Fruit Fly Monitoring- South...... 88 Olive Fruit Fly Monitoring- North ...... 90

2017-2018 No Cost Extension Reports...... 91 Canopy Management, Tree Hedging and Topping to Optimize Yield...... 92 Managing Alternate Bearing in Olive with Plant Growth Regulators (PGRs) and Pruning...... 99 Evaluation of Several Promising Additives for Reducing Acrylamide in Black Table Ripe Olives...... 108 2018-2019 Future Research...... 110 SECTION V- MARKETING 2018 Program Review...... 113 2019 Program Outline...... 135 CA Grown Partnership...... 140

SECTION VI- EXPORTS USADEC Summary...... 143 USMCA Summary...... 148 Foreign Agricultural Service...... 149 2018 Export Markets Japan...... 150 Canada...... 163 Southeast Asia...... 172 China...... 186 India...... 187 Asia Fruit Logistica...... 241 SECTION VII- CALIFORNIA OLIVE STATISTICS California Ripe Olive Data...... 245 Crop and Prices...... 262 Imports...... 269

REFERENCES...... 271 message from the executive director In 2018, the California Ripe Olive Industry has continued to thrive due to the hard work of the Committee Board, its Sub-Committees, producers, and the entire industry. This season, the California ripe olive industry has endured several challenges including labor, pest and disease concerns, regulatory issues, and a decrease in volume on an alternate bearing year due to weather complications. Despite this, the California Olive Committee remains a constant advocate and resource for the California ripe olive industry producers and handlers. In 1965, the COC was founded under Federal Marketing Order 932 and the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. Many years later, the COC has TODD SANDERS continued to administer marketing order programs for EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ripe olive growers and handlers in California in order to CALIFORNIA OLIVE COMMITTEE strengthen the performance of the industry. These programs are focused on marketing, research, inspections, exports, and education. We have achieved success in each of these areas by funding valuable research for growers; obtaining funding in the Market Access Program (MAP), Emerging Market Program (EMP) and the Agricultural Trade Promotion Program (ATP); continually adding to our rebranding in 2017 by focusing our marketing on specific target audiences; implementing optical sizing and streamlining the electronic reporting process; and constantly enforcing grades and standards set forth by the U.S. Agricultural Code Section 8(e). Additionally, the COC is committed to serving the California ripe olive industry by maintaining and developing relationships within the agricultural industry in order to continually educate, promote, and grow the industry. We have developed a working relationship with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Buy California Marketing Agreement (CA Grown), the Produce Marketing Association (PMA), United Fresh Produce Association, US Agriculture Export Development Council (USAEDC), Alliance for Food and Farming, and many other organizations. Lastly, the California Olive Committee has undergone a leadership change. Alex Ott, our former Executive Director, stepped down in June 2018 to pursue an opportunity as the Executive Director for the American Pecan Council. The California Olive Committee has benefited greatly from his guidance, direction, and leadership. We are extremely grateful for his time with the California Olive Committee and wish him the best. It is my pleasure to present you with the 2017-2018 Annual Report. Thank you for your continued support of the California Olive Committee. We look forward to a great season and to continue serving you in the upcoming year.

Todd Sanders 3 CHAIRMAN’S CORNER

“IT HAS BEEN AN HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE TO SERVE AS YOUR CHAIRMAN... HAVE A SAFE AND PROFITABLE 2019 SEASON”

hat a year of change 2018 turned out to be for the CaliforniaW Ripe Olive growers! To start, our growers sustained a devastating freeze that impacted our Southern and Northern Olive growing regions. The net result was a total yield of not quite 18,000 tons versus 90,000 tons in 2017. Not only did we MICHAEL SILVEIRA face the challenge of freeze damage to our crop, the industry CHAIRMAN also faced increased labor shortages as well as pest and CALIFORNIA OLIVE COMMITTEE disease issues. Additionally, one of our processors, Bell Carter Foods, LLC, a privately held United States company, sold 20% of their stock to the largest Spanish Co-operative Dcoop. The net outcome of this stock buyout has resulted in Bell Carter Foods, LLC releasing approximately 350 California Olive Grower contracts impacting about 6000 acres of domestic production. What is the good news? The good news is that the California Olive Committee, your grower Federal Marketing Order, still stands tall in support of the California grower! This includes our Strategic Action Plan implemented in 2014 as a road map to tackle future challenges within our Executive, Research, Marketing, and Inspection Sub-Committees. The results of these Sub- Committees have been outstanding. To name just a few achievements, our industry now has the capability of mechanization to circumvent our labor shortages; the industry has implemented the use of electronic grading; they have continued funding of research to get new Plant Protection Products registered for use in the control of Olive Fruit Fly, Olive Knot and the new fungal disease Neofabraea; and our marketing efforts highlight the growers of California. The California Olive Committee also supports our Section 8(e)which creates standards by which all our California ripe olives must adhere to making them the highest quality ripe olives in the world. This Section 8(e) also pertains to foreign olives imported for use as ripe olives. If these foreign olives do not meet the Section 8(e) standards, they cannot, by law, enter the United States. In closing, I would like to remind our olive growers that the California Olive Committee is an extension of the United States Department of Agriculture and must follow certain guidelines set forth by the USDA. With that said, the California Olive Committee is here for you, the growers. It has been since 1965, and it will continue to stand through future trials and tests that the industry may face. It has been an honor and a privilege to serve as your Chairman of the California Olive Committee, and I appreciate your support of this great industry. Have a safe and profitable 2019 season! Sincerely,

Michael Silveira

4 2018-2019 Board of directors

PRODUCERS June 1, 2017 – May 31, 2019

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

Members Alternates Pablo Nerey Carolina Burreson Ed Curiel Michael Silveira Edward Garcia Chris Henderson

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

Members Alternates Mark Hendrixson Julia Inestroza Mark Heuer Bert Quezada Rick Benson Joan Whelan-Vanderhorst Pat V. Ricchiuti Galen Pfeiffer Vito DeLeonardis John Patterson

HANDLERS

Members Alternates Colleen Morris Sergio Mendez Tim T. Carter Vacant Jacob Peters Vacant Julia Tinsley Phil Quigley Janet Edwards John Pieretti Felix Musco Vacant Bill McFarland Tracy Wood 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 resemblance to the olive tree, Olea europaea, which may have been first cultivated as early as five thousand years ago in Crete and Syria.

New World Transplant

The olive tree flourished in Spain, Tunisia, Morocco and Mediterranean 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 California by way of the missions. The first cuttings were planted in 1769 at the 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 experience and care of a skillful and conscientious housewife succeeded.”

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 18,000 acres growing in the warm inland valleys of the state. There are about 800 growers with orchards varying from as few as five acres to multi-crop farms with over 1,000 acres. Tulare County 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 Olive trees bloom in May with delicate, cream-colored flowers. By mid-September, the harvest begins. Olives 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 a firm texture and smooth, mellow taste. Once curing is complete, a series of cold water rinses removes every trace of curing solution. During the curing process, which takes several days, a flow of air bubbling through the olives produces the natural, rich dark color. In green olives, however, the oxygen step is omitted to retain the rich green coloring. A trace of organic iron salt (ferrous gluconate is added to act as a color fixer so the olives will have less tendency to fade after the cans are stored.

Canning is the final step. Ripe olives are canned in a mild salt brine solution and, because they are a low-acid product, are heat sterilized under strict California State health rules.

To ensure consistent quality, color, flavor and texture all canned Ripe Olives packaged in California are 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.

Care and Storage

California Ripe Olives are packed in a light brine solution, not only to bring out the flavor of the fruit, but also to 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.

7 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 issues effecting the production. In recent years, funds have been allocated to combat the olive fly flavor profiling, mechanical harvesting, and disease prevention. Incoming and Outgoing Inspection

1. Incoming regulations set up under the Order state that each lot of natural condition olives received by a handler, designated for canned ripe olives, are size-graded by California State inspectors and classified as 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. Department of Agriculture to ensure standards of size, color and flavor are met. The outgoing inspection 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 Califor- nia Ripe Olives. Efforts include utilization of social media, partnerships, news media and special events.

Exports The Committee also utilizes industry and federal funds (Market Access Program, Emerging Market Program, and Agricultural Trade Promotion Program) to conduct international activities to further develop existing markets and expand export opportunities for the California Ripe Olive industry.

8 CALIFORNIA OLIVE COmmittee Staff

Todd Sanders Elizabeth Carranza [email protected] [email protected] Executive Director Director of Trade and Technical Affairs

Lindsey Batty [email protected] Janette Ramos Program Supervisor [email protected] Office Manager

Nicole Helms [email protected] Intern

9 District map

10 Budget for activities

2018 Fiscal Year General Administration $401,200 • General Administration Expenditures $376,200 • Crisis Communication/Attorney $25,000

Industry Export Studies $186,000

MAP FUNDING $230,000

Research 2018 $125,291

Prior Research 2017 $256,216

Marketing $978,500

Inspection $77,000

TOTAL BUDGET $2,254,207

2018 BUDGET EXPENDITURES

3% 17%

43%

19%

11%

6% 1%

General Administration Industry Export Crisis Communication Research 2018 Prior Research 2017 Marketing Inspection

11 Upcoming Budget for activities

2019 Fiscal Year General Administration $540,400 • General Administration Expenditures $365,400 • Crisis Communication/Attorney $25,000 • Section 8e Contingency $150,000

Industry Export Services $173,500

MAP/ATP FUNDING $801,000

Research 2019 $343,523

Prior Research 2018 $68,994

Marketing $513,500

Inspection $58,000

TOTAL BUDGET $2,498,917

2019 BUDGET EXPENDITURES 20% 2% 21%

14%

1% 39%

General Administration Industry Export Crisis Communication Research 2019 Prior Research 2018 Marketing Inspection

12 California Olive Committee Assessment Rates and Budgets: 1965-2017

Crop Assmt Rate Assess Tons COC Admin Research ($) Marketing ($) Brand ($) Total Budget per Ton ($) ($) ($) ($) 1965-66 1.5 n/a 43,800 16,200 60,000 1965-67 1.75 49,298 65,500 65,500 1965-68 2.5 n/a 52,000 52,000 1965-69 6.5 69,218 80,617 17,075 232,580 330,272 1965-70 6.5 53,157 76,430 17,397 185,000 278,827 1965-71 9 36,730 80,472 15,000 219,528 315,000 1965-72 13 35,077 92,000 46,000 420,850 558,850 1965-73 13 20,009 84,595 22,500 160,000 267,095 1965-74 15 57,393 97,960 35,000 653,391 786,351 1965-75 15 48,939 97,550 43,000 1/ 624,945 765,495 1965-76 15 52,245 117,350 26,100 1/ 753,100 896,550 1965-77 14 62,151 127,526 22,000 741,474 891,000 1965-78 12 33,881 102,262 26,738 450,000 579,000 1965-79 15 102,959 117,350 35,000 1,017,650 1,170,000 1965-80 14.33 49,424 116,000 40,000 1,040,128 1,196,128 1965-81 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)122,000 1,296,731 2016 26.00 71,703 484,800 210,815 727,800 (Insp)10,200 1,515,415 2017 26.00 63,000 513,100 317,766 823,500 (Insp)98,000 1,752,366 2018 24.00 83,799 401,200 297,777 973,500 77,000 1,940,477

13 strategic planning

15 strategic planning summary

In 2014, the California Olive Committee adopted and implemented a strategic action plan for the Committee. The meeting brought together all segments of the California ripe olive industry including the California Olive Committee and the Olive Growers Council of California. During the meeting, all aspects of the industry and how all the organizations could work together with the mission of the industry to: “Provide and maintain a viable and profitable ripe olive industry.” The California Olive Committee continued to focus on the eight items placed in five areas of the Strategic Action Plan that was adopted in 2014. The five areas of focus include: Standards and Enforcement, Research, Exports, Marketing and Education, and Industry Relations.

17 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

18 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:

 A situation analysis that outlined the issues impacting the olive industry;  The roles of each individual table olive organization;  A survey of the industry that outlined the challenges and opportunities within the industry;  A mission statement for the industry;  Dividing the issues into the appropriate organizations that will be responsible for the identified areas;  Focuses for each specific organization; and  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

19 Dennis BURRESON - Musco Pat RICCHIUTI - Grower Doug REIFSTECK - Bell Carter Mark HENDRIXON - Grower Tim CARTER - Bell Carter James THOMAS - Bell Carter Michael SILVEIRA - 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)

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:

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

Group 2:

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

21  Imports;  Consumer Perception: o Can/BPA o Fresh o Health Perception  CA Black Ripe Olives – Domestic Market (Not accepted globally).

Group 3:

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

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

2 Ibid

22  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

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

Group 2

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

Group 3

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

23  Government Funds for Export Marketing  Supply Chain Consolidation  Government Aid for Incenting Modern Plantings  Influence Current Legislation for Water Diversion  Industry – Sponsored Labor Camps  Updated Quality Standard in Federal Marketing Order to limit oil levels  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:

 Regulatory  Expand Markets o Domestic and International  Communication  Sharing of Resources  Increased Political Activity  Leverage Quality  Improve Harvesting Costs  Government Funds  Research  Review and Amend Federal Marketing Order Standards and Varieties  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.

24 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

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

California Olive Growers Association

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

California Olive Growers Council

 Sharing Resources – Grower Impact  Pushing Back on self-certification  Regulatory  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

25  Grant $ for modernization; o Domestic & International  Regulatory  Quality Standards (where limited)  Communication  Grades & standards for varieties and styles (where des is limited)  MAP & TASC  Sharing Resources

The following grid outlines the organization and responsibilities.

COC COGA* COGC CA Commission Regulatory compliance, Regulatory Issues Sharing Resources – Grower Grant $ for modernization concerns and issues Impact

Communication Sharing of Resources Pushing Back on self-certification Regulatory

Leverage Quality (marketing) Policy and Enforcement of Regulatory Quality Standards (where limited) COC Standards (Lobbying)

Research Legal Interaction Controlling Harvest Costs Communication

Federal Marketing Order, Communication with Grades & standards for varieties Grades, Standards (varieties & politicos and styles (where des is limited) styles)

Grants, MAP, TASC, EMP Harvesting Cost and the MAP & TASC dollars Labor Issue

Quality standards Sharing Resources

Enforcement of Standards (Section 8e) *Should be noted that because these organizations are voluntary, it is important that dollars are available to carry out these functions. Should dollars not become available, then the industry needs to look into the possibility of shifting necessary responsibilities to organizations that can sustain funding.

The meeting concluded by reviewing the expectations of all those in attendance. OTT and SANDERS reviewed the expectations and identified if they were achieved or additional work was needed.

Expectations:

 Have a better understanding of the Federal Marketing Order and utilize our time;  Alignment of the industry;  Plan to keep growers in business;  Approach to sustain the olive industry;  Clarity of common interest;  Plan for equal playing field;  Prioritization;

26  Plan sustainability and what the federal marketing order does; and  Looking at other industries.

There were thee items that did not receive a check mark. These were not completed due to the following reasons:

 Plan to keep growers in business

Although this would have been a worthy goal for the meeting, the plan was more focused on the organizations and the industry. Should items be implemented, it will assist in keeping growers in business. However, it is not a plan specifically to keep growers in business.

 Plan for equal playing field

Several items were outlined that are needed to make an equal playing field. Should the implementation of the overall strategies be implemented, then a plan will develop for an equal playing field between foreign and domestic production.

 Looking at other industries

There was much discussing about looking to other industries for some solutions for our issues. Although we touched on these items, the meeting did not dive into specifics of other industries. When identifying specific issues, it would be good for the industry, staff and management to review other industry approaches before finalizing on a solution of their own. This will provide valuable data on what has and has not worked for other industries while providing insight on what does and does not work.

27 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:

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

 Effective Communication for the industry and its components;

 Leverage Quality (marketing);

 Conduct Research; o Improving Harvest Costs; o Modernization;

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

28  Maintain, address and implement Federal Marketing Order, Grades, Standards (varieties & styles)

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

 Review and implement Quality standards; and

 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.

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

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

2) RESEARCH

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

3) EXPORTS

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

4) MARKETING & EDUCATION

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

5) INDUSTRY RELATIONS

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

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:

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

 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.

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

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

 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.

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

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

 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.

Inspection

inspection summary

The COC inspection program continues to evolve, progress, and provide more value to the industry. The 2014 program year was the inaugural year for the Olive Electronic Reporting System (OERS). The COC continues to add more features to help with 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 picking, identify accelerated ripening, or review crop “trash” reports at the receiving station. This technology, at the click of button, provides growers with the tools and opportunity to manage their orchards and review certificates with maximum efficiency. 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 any growers have an interest in seeing the optical sizer at work, please contact your canner field representative. If you have any questions about OERS or would like to know how to use the system, please feel free to contact our office. User manuals for growers can also be found at calolive.org, within the industry section, under inspection.

35 CALIFORNIA OLIVE COMMITTEE CALIFORNIA OLIVE COMMITTEE INCOMING INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS OUTGOING INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS 2017-2018 2017-2018 SIZE REQUIREMENTS AND PERCENTAGE TOLERANCES U.S. Standards & Acceptable Count Ranges and Mid-Points SIZE MISSION/ Marketing Order Sizes (PER POUND) SEVILLANO ASCOLANO* OBLIZA DESIGNATION MANZANILLO** VARIETY GROUP 1 VARIETY GROUP 2 AVERAGE Undersize Undersize SIZE COUNT SEVILLANO ASCOLANO** OBLIZA MISSION/ MANZANILLO* Undersize Undersize DESIGNATION RANGE Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Sub-Petite Mid Mid Mid Mid 35% less than PER POUND Count Count Count Count Point Point Point Point 1 / 205 lb. Range Range Range Range Petite Undersize 35% less than 35% less than 1 / 180 lb. Undersize 226-up Undersize 206-Up Small 128-140 Undersize Undersize 1 / 180 lb. 181-Up 181-Up Sub-Petite 181-225 181-205 193 Medium 106-127 106-127 Undersize Petite 141-180 158-174 166 158-174 166 158-174 166 Large 91-105 91-105 91-105 106-Up 35% less than 1 / 105 lb. Small 128-140 132-138 135 136-140 138 132-138 135 Extra Large All sizes 65-90 65-90 All sizes 65-90 5% less Medium 106-127 110-122 116 110-122 116 110-122 116 Extra Large 65-75 All sizes 5% less than 5% less than Large 91-105 91-105 98 91-105 98 95-101 98 91-105 98 Jumbo 47-60 All sizes 47-60 47-60 47-60 1/ 140 lb. than 1/ 127 lb. 5% less Extra Large Sev “L” 76-90 82-90 86 — — — — — — Colossal 33-46 33-46 1/ 105 lb. 33-46 33-46 than Extra Large 65-90 — — 67-85 72-80 65-88 72-80 65-88 72-80 Super Colossal 32 or less 1/ 75 lb. 32 or less 32 or less 32 or less

Extra Large Sev “C” 65-75 67-73 70 — — — — — — Tolerance (by count) Tolerance (by count) Tolerance (by count) Tolerance (by count) 35% under 1/ 75 but not 35% under 1/ 105 but not 35% under 1/ 127 but not 35% under 1/ 140 but Jumbo 47-60 47-60 47-60 47-60 47-60 47-60 47-60 47-60 47-60 more than 10% under 1 more than 10% under 1 more than 7% under 1/ not more than 7% under Colossal 33-46 33-46 33-46 33-46 33-46 33-46 33-46 33-46 33-46 / 86 / 113 138 1/ 166

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 * Ascolano includes St. Agostino and Barouni

* Manzanillo includes Haas ** Includes Haas variety ** Ascolano includes St. Agostino and Barouni LIMITED USE SIZE and PERCENTAGE TOLERANCES

Undersize Tolerances apply to MINIMUM WHOLE OR PITTED CANNING SIZE: Sevillano- Extra Large “C”; Ascolano- Large; Obliza- Medium; Mission/Manzanillo- Small Limited Sizes

36 CALIFORNIA OLIVE COMMITTEE CALIFORNIA OLIVE COMMITTEE INCOMING INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS OUTGOING INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS 2017-2018 2017-2018 SIZE REQUIREMENTS AND PERCENTAGE TOLERANCES U.S. Standards & Acceptable Count Ranges and Mid-Points SIZE MISSION/ Marketing Order Sizes (PER POUND) SEVILLANO ASCOLANO* OBLIZA DESIGNATION MANZANILLO** VARIETY GROUP 1 VARIETY GROUP 2 AVERAGE Undersize Undersize SIZE COUNT SEVILLANO ASCOLANO** OBLIZA MISSION/ MANZANILLO* Undersize Undersize DESIGNATION RANGE Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Sub-Petite Mid Mid Mid Mid 35% less than PER POUND Count Count Count Count Point Point Point Point 1 / 205 lb. Range Range Range Range Petite Undersize 35% less than 35% less than 1 / 180 lb. Undersize 226-up Undersize 206-Up Small 128-140 Undersize Undersize 1 / 180 lb. 181-Up 181-Up Sub-Petite 181-225 181-205 193 Medium 106-127 106-127 Undersize Petite 141-180 158-174 166 158-174 166 158-174 166 Large 91-105 91-105 91-105 106-Up 35% less than 1 / 105 lb. Small 128-140 132-138 135 136-140 138 132-138 135 Extra Large All sizes 65-90 65-90 All sizes 65-90 5% less Medium 106-127 110-122 116 110-122 116 110-122 116 Extra Large 65-75 All sizes 5% less than 5% less than Large 91-105 91-105 98 91-105 98 95-101 98 91-105 98 Jumbo 47-60 All sizes 47-60 47-60 47-60 1/ 140 lb. than 1/ 127 lb. 5% less Extra Large Sev “L” 76-90 82-90 86 — — — — — — Colossal 33-46 33-46 1/ 105 lb. 33-46 33-46 than Extra Large 65-90 — — 67-85 72-80 65-88 72-80 65-88 72-80 Super Colossal 32 or less 1/ 75 lb. 32 or less 32 or less 32 or less

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 * Ascolano includes St. Agostino and Barouni

* Manzanillo includes Haas ** Includes Haas variety ** Ascolano includes St. Agostino and Barouni LIMITED USE SIZE and PERCENTAGE TOLERANCES

Undersize Tolerances apply to MINIMUM WHOLE OR PITTED CANNING SIZE: Sevillano- Extra Large “C”; Ascolano- Large; Obliza- Medium; Mission/Manzanillo- Small Limited Sizes

37 food safety modernization act

The California ripe olive industry continuously strives to produce a healthy and safe product. Through the COC's work in pest, disease, and standardization, the COC represents the industry on critical issues.

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was signed into law on January 4th, 2011, by President Barack Obama. The purpose of the law mandates the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to implement a “comprehensive, science-based, preventative control across the food supply.” The FSMA rules are put in place to ensure specific actions that must be taken at each of the following points to prevent contamination. For several years, the Administration drafted several new rules including: Mitigation Strategies to protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration, Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food, Produce Safety Rule, Foreign Supplier Verification Program, Accredited Third-Party Certification, Preventative Controls for Human Food, and Preventative Controls for Food for Animals. Although these rules have been drafted, guidance documents are still being formulated. The FDA has made it clear that the Administration plans to do an education roll out to assist growers, packers, and handlers on the implementation of the Act.

January 2018 marks a big milestone for FSMA in relation to large farms ($500,000 or more in revenue) when the Produce Safety Rule comes into force for these individuals on January 28, 2019. This rule will come into effect for smaller farms in January 2020, and very small farms in 2021. Fortunately for large growers, the first year of the rule will focus less on regulation and compliance, but more on education and readiness. With that, On-Farm Readiness Reviews are available for growers to test their preparedness for FSMA. With these reviews, growers voluntarily allow a team of state/federal regulators to work with them to ensure they are prepared for rule implementation. Please see the following pages for more detailed information regarding the On-Farm Readiness Review program.

Finally, the COC will continue to update the industry as these new guidance documents are released. For more information, please visit the following link to view the most recent publication of the rules for the Food Safety Modernization Act: https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/

38 Research

2017-2018 Research summary

The COC continually strives to conduct valuable research for the ripe olive industry. In 2018, the COC funded 10 projects that address issues of mechanical harvesting, canopy management, olive knot management, Olive Fruit Fly, and others. This year, four of the projects were given no-cost extensions to continue their research into 2019. Their progress reports can be found in this 2018 annual report. In addition to this year’s research funding, the COC has also bolstered the research section of the California ripe olive website, calolive.org. Past research projects can be found and accessed in the Industry section of the website under the Research tab. If you have any questions about how to access the industry section of the website or how to utilize past research, please feel free to reach out to the COC, and we will gladly assist you.

41 2018 Final Reports

Evaluation of New Chemistries to Control Olive Fruit Fly- Dr. Debra Keenan

Epimiology and Management of Olive Knot Caused by Pseudomonas Savastonoi pv. Savastoni- Dr. J.E. Adaskaveg

Management of Foliar Diseases of Olive- Dr. J.E. Adaskaveg

New Fruit Removal Head for an Olive Harvesting System- Dr. Reza Ehsani

Olive Fruit Fly Monitoring- South- Dr. Jim Stewart

Olive Fruit Fly Monitoring- North- Dr. Ernie Simpson

42 Dec-9-2018 (OFFsilv) ARM 2018.5 Trial Treatments Page 1 of 11 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. Trial ID: OFFsilv Location: Orland Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: Olive FF OC Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: olivesilv Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Trt Treatment Rate Appl Spray Volume Mix Mix No. Type Name Rate Unit Code Volume Unit Size Unit 1 CHK Untreated 2 INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item ABCDEF 3 INSE Danitol 16 fl oz/a AB 100 GAL/AC 20 GAL 4 INSE Harvanta 16 fl oz/a AD 100 GAL/AC 20 GAL INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 5 INSE Harvanta 24 fl oz/a AD 100 GAL/AC 20 GAL INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 6 INSE Asail 8 fl oz/a AD 100 GAL/AC 20 GAL INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item BDEF 7 INSE Avaunt 4 oz wt/a AD 100 GAL/AC 20 GAL INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 8 INSE Avaunt 5 oz wt/a AD 100 GAL/AC 20 GAL INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 9 INSE Minecto Pro 12 fl oz/a AD INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 10 INSE Sivanto 14 fl oz/a AD INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 11 INSE Lorsban 4 fl oz/a AD INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 12 INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item ACE INSE Harvanta 16 fl oz/a B 100 GAL/AC 20 GAL INSE Asail 8 fl oz/a D 100 GAL/AC 20 GAL INSE Danitol 16 fl oz/a F 100 GAL/AC 20 GAL

Replications: 6, Untreated treatments: 1, Design: Randomized Complete Block (RCB), Treatment units: US standard, Treated 'Plot' experimental unit size Width: 18 feet, Treated 'Plot' experimental unit size Length: 18 feet, Application volume: 100 GAL/AC, Mix size: 4.686 GAL, Overage: 5%, Format definitions: G-All7.def, G-All7.frm

Product quantities required for listed treatments and applications of trials included in this table:

Amount* Unit Treatment Name Form Conc Form Unit Form Type Lot Code

* Adjusted for multiple applications in treatment list.

General Trial Information Study Director: California Olive Committee Investigator: Debra Keenan

Trial Status: E established

Trial Location City: Orland Country: USA United States State/Prov.: California Postal Code: 95963

Directions: 4553 County Road RR Orland, CA 95963

Conducted Under GLP: No Conducted Under GEP: No

Keywords: efficacy of olive fruit fly control

Objectives: Determine the best control measures for Olive Fruit Fly. Search new insecticides for potential control. Determine if the materials cause injury to the crop. Also determine if the insecticides have any control of olive scale which is becoming a bigger pest in the area. Conduct trials in Olive growing regions. Conduct 4-5 trials.

Conclusions: There was a frost early in the year that affected the olives. The crop was reduced. The fruit fly infestation was light this year and the use of insecticides other than GF 120 were not warrented.

I would set up the trial next year in a non-randomized block design. This would help since the pest lays eggs randomly.

43 Dec-9-2018 (OFFsilv) ARM 2018.5 Site Description Page 2 of 11 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. Trial ID: OFFsilv Location: Orland Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: Olive FF OC Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: olivesilv Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Contacts Study Director: California Olive Committee

Investigator: Debra Keenan Organization: Research 2000 Cooperator/Landowner Cooperator: Silveira Role: FALDOW Crop Description Crop 1: OLVEU Olea europaea Olive Variety: ASCOLANO BBCH Scale: BPER

Pest Description Pest 1 Type: I Code: BATCSP Batocera sp. Common Name: Batocera sp. Description: olive fruit fly

Site and Design Treated Plot Width: 18 FT Site Type: ORCHAR orchard Treated Plot Length: 18 FT Treated Plot Area: 324 FT2 Treatments: 12 Replications: 6 Study Design: RACOBL Randomized Complete Block (RCB)

Comment: There was a freeze early in the season.

Application Description A B C D E F Application Date: May-24-2018 May-30-2018 Jun-20-2018 Jun-28-2018 Jul-6-2018 Sep-18-2018 Appl. Start Time: 8:00 AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 8:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM Appl. Stop Time: 9:30 AM 8:30 AM 10:30 AM 9:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM Application Method: backpack backpack backpack backpack backpack backpack Application Placement: GF type GF type GF type GF type GF type GF type Applied By: D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN Air Temperature, Unit: 68 F 66 F 71 F 72 F 72 F 61 F % Relative Humidity: 20 30 10 20 10 20 Wind Velocity, Unit: 1 MPH 0 MPH 1 MPH 2 MPH 0 MPH 1 MPH Wind Direction: SE NA SE SE NA SE Dew Presence (Y/N): N no N no N no N no N no N no Soil Temperature, Unit: 61 F 61 F 63 F 67 F 66 F 62 F Soil Moisture: DAMP DAMP DAMP DAMP DRY DRY

Crop Stage At Each Application A B C D E F Crop 1 Code, BBCH Scale: OLVEU BPER OLVEU BPER OLVEU BPER OLVEU BPER OLVEU BPER OLVEU BPER

Pest Stage At Each Application ABCDEF Pest 1 Code, Type, Scale: BATCSP I BATCSP I BATCSP I BATCSP I BATCSP I BATCSP I

Application Equipment A B C D E F Appl. Equipment: Backpack Backpack Backpack Backpack Backpack Backpack Equipment Type: BACKPA BACKPA BACKPA BACKPA BACKPA BACKPA Operation Pressure, Unit: 20 psi 20 psi 20 psi 20 psi 20 psi 20 psi Nozzle Type: hollow hollow hollow hollow hollow hollow Carrier: WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER Spray Volume, Unit: 1 GAL/AC 1 GAL/AC 1 GAL/AC 1 GAL/AC 1 GAL/AC 1 GAL/AC Mix Size, Unit: 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL

44 Dec-9-2018 (OFFsilv) ARM 2018.5 Site Description Page 3 of 11 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. Trial ID: OFFsilv Location: Orland Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: Olive FF OC Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: olivesilv Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Trt No Treatment Application Comment NOTE GF 120 ALSO SPRAYED ON 8-21-2018 AND 9-12-2018 NOTE ALL TREATMENTS WERE GF 120 THE TRAPS DID NOT WARRENT A CONVENTIONAL APPLICATION

Date By Notes Dec-9-2018 Debra Keena Automatically added by ARM: Trial Status updated to 'E' when Rating Date entered.

Pest Type I Insect I Insect I Insect Pest Code BATCSP BATCSP BATCSP Pest Name Batocera sp. Batocera sp. Batocera sp. Crop Code OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU BBCH Scale BPER BPER BPER BPER BPER BPER Crop Scientific Name Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Crop Name Olive Olive Olive Olive Olive Olive Part Rated olive c tree c olive c tree c olive c tree c Rating Date Aug-15-2018 Aug-15-2018 Sep-19-2018 Sep-19-2018 Aug-15-2018 Aug-15-2018 Rating Type COUINS phygen COUINS phygen COUINS phygen Rating Unit % 0-10 % 0-10 % 0-10 Number of Subsamples 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assessed By D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN Days After First/Last Applic. 83 40 83 40 118 1 118 1 83 40 83 40 ARM Action Codes P P P Trt Treatment Rate Appl No. Name Rate Unit Code Plot 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Untreated 108 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 207 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 308 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 406 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 501 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 611 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Mean = 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.2 0.0 2 GF120 1 fl oz/item ABCDEF 102 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 205 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 301 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 403 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 512 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 609 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Mean = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3 Danitol 16 fl oz/a AB 112 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 210 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 309 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 411 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 510 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 602 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 Harvanta 16 fl oz/a AD 106 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 209 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 307 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 405 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 509 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 612 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 5 Harvanta 24 fl oz/a AD 103 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 211 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 303 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 409 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 506 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 610 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 6 Asail 8 fl oz/a AD 110 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GF120 1 fl oz/item BDEF 206 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 302 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 404 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 503 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 605 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0

45 Dec-9-2018 (OFFsilv) ARM 2018.5 Assessment Data Summary Page 4 of 11 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. Trial ID: OFFsilv Location: Orland Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: Olive FF OC Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: olivesilv Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Pest Type I Insect I Insect I Insect Pest Code BATCSP BATCSP BATCSP Pest Name Batocera sp. Batocera sp. Batocera sp. Crop Code OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU BBCH Scale BPER BPER BPER BPER BPER BPER Crop Scientific Name Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Crop Name Olive Olive Olive Olive Olive Olive Part Rated olive c tree c olive c tree c olive c tree c Rating Date Aug-15-2018 Aug-15-2018 Sep-19-2018 Sep-19-2018 Aug-15-2018 Aug-15-2018 Rating Type COUINS phygen COUINS phygen COUINS phygen Rating Unit % 0-10 % 0-10 % 0-10 Number of Subsamples 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assessed By D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN Days After First/Last Applic. 83 40 83 40 118 1 118 1 83 40 83 40 ARM Action Codes P P P Trt Treatment Rate Appl No. Name Rate Unit Code Plot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Avaunt 4 oz wt/a AD 101 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 203 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 305 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 407 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 505 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 606 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 Avaunt 5 oz wt/a AD 111 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 204 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 306 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 402 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 508 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 601 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 9 Minecto Pro 12 fl oz/a AD 107 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 208 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 304 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 408 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 504 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 603 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 Sivanto 14 fl oz/a AD 105 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 202 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 311 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 410 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 507 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 608 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 11 Lorsban 4 fl oz/a AD 109 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 212 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 310 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 412 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 502 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 604 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 12 GF120 1 fl oz/item ACE 104 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Harvanta 16 fl oz/a B 201 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Asail 8 fl oz/a D 312 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Danitol 16 fl oz/a F 401 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 511 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 607 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Pest Type I, Insect, G-BYRI7, G-InsStg = Insect Pest Code BATCSP, Batocera sp., Batocera sp. = US Crop Code OLVEU, BPER, Olea europaea, Olive = US c = Crop is Part Rated Rating Type COUINS = count - insect phygen = phytotoxicity - general / injury Rating Unit

46 Dec-9-2018 (OFFsilv) ARM 2018.5 Assessment Data Summary Page 5 of 11 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. Trial ID: OFFsilv Location: Orland Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: Olive FF OC Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: olivesilv Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 % = percent 0-10 = 0-10 index/scale ARM Action Codes P = Rating scale of 0 to 100 (e.g. % control or injury) Pest Type I Insect Pest Code BATCSP Pest Name Batocera sp. Crop Code OLVEU BBCH Scale BPER Crop Scientific Name Olea europaea Crop Name Olive Part Rated olive c Rating Date Aug-15-2018 Rating Type COUINS Rating Unit % Number of Subsamples 1 Assessed By D KEENAN Days After First/Last Applic. 83 40 ARM Action Codes P Trt Treatment Rate Appl No. Name Rate Unit Code 1 1 Untreated 0.0 - 2 GF120 1 fl oz/item ABCDEF 0.0 - 3 Danitol 16 fl oz/a AB 0.0 - 4 Harvanta 16 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 5 Harvanta 24 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 6 Asail 8 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BDEF 7 Avaunt 4 oz wt/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 8 Avaunt 5 oz wt/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 9 Minecto Pro 12 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 10 Sivanto 14 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 11 Lorsban 4 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 12 GF120 1 fl oz/item ACE 0.0 - Harvanta 16 fl oz/a B Asail 8 fl oz/a D Danitol 16 fl oz/a F LSD P=.10 . Standard Deviation 0.00 CV 0.0 Levene's F 0.00 Levene's Prob(F) 0.00* Skewness . Kurtosis .

Replicate F 0.000 Replicate Prob(F) 1.0000 Treatment F 0.000 Treatment Prob(F) 1.0000

47 Dec-9-2018 (OFFsilv) ARM 2018.5 AOV Means Table Page 6 of 11 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. Trial ID: OFFsilv Location: Orland Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: Olive FF OC Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: olivesilv Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Pest Type Pest Code Pest Name Crop Code OLVEU BBCH Scale BPER Crop Scientific Name Olea europaea Crop Name Olive Part Rated tree c Rating Date Aug-15-2018 Rating Type phygen Rating Unit 0-10 Number of Subsamples 1 Assessed By D KEENAN Days After First/Last Applic. 83 40 ARM Action Codes Trt Treatment Rate Appl No. Name Rate Unit Code 2 1 Untreated 0.0 - 2 GF120 1 fl oz/item ABCDEF 0.0 - 3 Danitol 16 fl oz/a AB 0.0 - 4 Harvanta 16 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 5 Harvanta 24 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 6 Asail 8 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BDEF 7 Avaunt 4 oz wt/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 8 Avaunt 5 oz wt/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 9 Minecto Pro 12 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 10 Sivanto 14 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 11 Lorsban 4 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 12 GF120 1 fl oz/item ACE 0.0 - Harvanta 16 fl oz/a B Asail 8 fl oz/a D Danitol 16 fl oz/a F LSD P=.10 . Standard Deviation 0.00 CV 0.0 Levene's F 0.00 Levene's Prob(F) 0.00* Skewness . Kurtosis .

Replicate F 0.000 Replicate Prob(F) 1.0000 Treatment F 0.000 Treatment Prob(F) 1.0000

Means followed by same letter or symbol do not significantly differ (P=.10, Student-Newman-Keuls). Mean comparisons performed only when AOV Treatment P(F) is significant at mean comparison OSL. Could not calculate LSD (% mean diff) for columns 1,2 because error mean square = 0.

48 Dec-9-2018 (OFFsilv) ARM 2018.5 AOV Means Table Page 7 of 11 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. Trial ID: OFFsilv Location: Orland Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: Olive FF OC Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: olivesilv Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Pest Type I Insect Pest Code BATCSP Pest Name Batocera sp. Crop Code OLVEU BBCH Scale BPER Crop Scientific Name Olea europaea Crop Name Olive Part Rated olive c Rating Date Sep-19-2018 Rating Type COUINS Rating Unit % Number of Subsamples 1 Assessed By D KEENAN Days After First/Last Applic. 118 1 ARM Action Codes P Trt Treatment Rate Appl No. Name Rate Unit Code 3 1 Untreated 1.2 a 2 GF120 1 fl oz/item ABCDEF 0.0 b 3 Danitol 16 fl oz/a AB 0.0 b 4 Harvanta 16 fl oz/a AD 0.0 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 5 Harvanta 24 fl oz/a AD 0.0 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 6 Asail 8 fl oz/a AD 0.0 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BDEF 7 Avaunt 4 oz wt/a AD 0.0 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 8 Avaunt 5 oz wt/a AD 0.0 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 9 Minecto Pro 12 fl oz/a AD 0.0 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 10 Sivanto 14 fl oz/a AD 0.0 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 11 Lorsban 4 fl oz/a AD 0.0 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 12 GF120 1 fl oz/item ACE 0.0 b Harvanta 16 fl oz/a B Asail 8 fl oz/a D Danitol 16 fl oz/a F LSD P=.10 0.21 Standard Deviation 0.22 CV 223.52 Levene's F Levene's Prob(F) Skewness 4.1632* Kurtosis 17.3402*

Replicate F 1.000 Replicate Prob(F) 0.4265 Treatment F 14.412 Treatment Prob(F) 0.0001

49 Dec-9-2018 (OFFsilv) ARM 2018.5 AOV Means Table Page 8 of 11 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. Trial ID: OFFsilv Location: Orland Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: Olive FF OC Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: olivesilv Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Pest Type Pest Code Pest Name Crop Code OLVEU BBCH Scale BPER Crop Scientific Name Olea europaea Crop Name Olive Part Rated tree c Rating Date Sep-19-2018 Rating Type phygen Rating Unit 0-10 Number of Subsamples 1 Assessed By D KEENAN Days After First/Last Applic. 118 1 ARM Action Codes Trt Treatment Rate Appl No. Name Rate Unit Code 4 1 Untreated 0.0 - 2 GF120 1 fl oz/item ABCDEF 0.0 - 3 Danitol 16 fl oz/a AB 0.0 - 4 Harvanta 16 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 5 Harvanta 24 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 6 Asail 8 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BDEF 7 Avaunt 4 oz wt/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 8 Avaunt 5 oz wt/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 9 Minecto Pro 12 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 10 Sivanto 14 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 11 Lorsban 4 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 12 GF120 1 fl oz/item ACE 0.0 - Harvanta 16 fl oz/a B Asail 8 fl oz/a D Danitol 16 fl oz/a F LSD P=.10 . Standard Deviation 0.00 CV 0.0 Levene's F 0.00 Levene's Prob(F) 0.00* Skewness . Kurtosis .

Replicate F 0.000 Replicate Prob(F) 1.0000 Treatment F 0.000 Treatment Prob(F) 1.0000

50 Dec-9-2018 (OFFsilv) ARM 2018.5 AOV Means Table Page 9 of 11 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. Trial ID: OFFsilv Location: Orland Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: Olive FF OC Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: olivesilv Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Pest Type I Insect Pest Code BATCSP Pest Name Batocera sp. Crop Code OLVEU BBCH Scale BPER Crop Scientific Name Olea europaea Crop Name Olive Part Rated olive c Rating Date Aug-15-2018 Rating Type COUINS Rating Unit % Number of Subsamples 1 Assessed By D KEENAN Days After First/Last Applic. 83 40 ARM Action Codes P Trt Treatment Rate Appl No. Name Rate Unit Code 5 1 Untreated 2.2 a 2 GF120 1 fl oz/item ABCDEF 0.3 b 6 Asail 8 fl oz/a AD 0.3 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BDEF 4 Harvanta 16 fl oz/a AD 0.2 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 5 Harvanta 24 fl oz/a AD 0.2 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 8 Avaunt 5 oz wt/a AD 0.2 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 10 Sivanto 14 fl oz/a AD 0.2 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 11 Lorsban 4 fl oz/a AD 0.2 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 12 GF120 1 fl oz/item ACE 0.2 b Harvanta 16 fl oz/a B Asail 8 fl oz/a D Danitol 16 fl oz/a F 3 Danitol 16 fl oz/a AB 0.0 b 7 Avaunt 4 oz wt/a AD 0.0 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 9 Minecto Pro 12 fl oz/a AD 0.0 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF LSD P=.10 0.41 Standard Deviation 0.42 CV 131.9 Levene's F 0.884 Levene's Prob(F) 0.56 Skewness 2.4152* Kurtosis 5.7468*

Replicate F 0.829 Replicate Prob(F) 0.5344 Treatment F 11.856 Treatment Prob(F) 0.0001

51 Dec-9-2018 (OFFsilv) ARM 2018.5 AOV Means Table Page 10 of 11 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. Trial ID: OFFsilv Location: Orland Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: Olive FF OC Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: olivesilv Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Pest Type Pest Code Pest Name Crop Code OLVEU BBCH Scale BPER Crop Scientific Name Olea europaea Crop Name Olive Part Rated tree c Rating Date Aug-15-2018 Rating Type phygen Rating Unit 0-10 Number of Subsamples 1 Assessed By D KEENAN Days After First/Last Applic. 83 40 ARM Action Codes Trt Treatment Rate Appl No. Name Rate Unit Code 6 1 Untreated 0.0 - 2 GF120 1 fl oz/item ABCDEF 0.0 - 3 Danitol 16 fl oz/a AB 0.0 - 4 Harvanta 16 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 5 Harvanta 24 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 6 Asail 8 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BDEF 7 Avaunt 4 oz wt/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 8 Avaunt 5 oz wt/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 9 Minecto Pro 12 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 10 Sivanto 14 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 11 Lorsban 4 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 12 GF120 1 fl oz/item ACE 0.0 - Harvanta 16 fl oz/a B Asail 8 fl oz/a D Danitol 16 fl oz/a F LSD P=.10 . Standard Deviation 0.00 CV 0.0 Levene's F 0.00 Levene's Prob(F) 0.00* Skewness . Kurtosis .

Replicate F 0.000 Replicate Prob(F) 1.0000 Treatment F 0.000 Treatment Prob(F) 1.0000 Pest Type I, Insect, G-BYRI7, G-InsStg = Insect Pest Code BATCSP, Batocera sp., Batocera sp. = US Crop Code OLVEU, BPER, Olea europaea, Olive = US c = Crop is Part Rated Rating Type COUINS = count - insect phygen = phytotoxicity - general / injury Rating Unit % = percent

52 Dec-9-2018 (OFFsilv) ARM 2018.5 AOV Means Table Page 11 of 11 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. Trial ID: OFFsilv Location: Orland Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: Olive FF OC Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: olivesilv Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 0-10 = 0-10 index/scale ARM Action Codes P = Rating scale of 0 to 100 (e.g. % control or injury)

Trial Map Treatment Description Trt Code Description 1 CHK 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

53 Dec-9-2018 (OLIVE FF-OC HENNING) ARM 2018.5 Trial Treatments Page 1 of 12 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. HENNING RANCH SITE Trial ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Location: ORLAND Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Trt Treatment Rate Appl Spray Volume Mix Mix No. Type Name Rate Unit Code Volume Unit Size Unit 1 CHK Untreated 2 INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item ABCDEF 3 INSE Danitol 16 fl oz/a AB 100 GAL/AC 20 GAL 4 INSE Harvanta 16 fl oz/a AD 100 GAL/AC 20 GAL INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 5 INSE Harvanta 24 fl oz/a AD 100 GAL/AC 20 GAL INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 6 INSE Asail 8 fl oz/a AD 100 GAL/AC 20 GAL INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item BDEF 7 INSE Avaunt 4 oz wt/a AD 100 GAL/AC 20 GAL INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 8 INSE Avaunt 5 oz wt/a AD 100 GAL/AC 20 GAL INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 9 INSE Minecto Pro 12 fl oz/a AD INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 10 INSE Sivanto 14 fl oz/a AD INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 11 INSE Lorsban 4 fl oz/a AD INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 12 INSE GF120 1 fl oz/item ACE INSE Harvanta 16 fl oz/a B 100 GAL/AC 20 GAL INSE Asail 8 fl oz/a D 100 GAL/AC 20 GAL INSE Danitol 16 fl oz/a F 100 GAL/AC 20 GAL

Product quantities required for listed treatments and applications of trials included in this table:

Amount* Unit Treatment Name Form Conc Form Unit Form Type Lot Code

* Adjusted for multiple applications in treatment list.

General Trial Information Study Director: California Olive Committee Investigator: Debra Keenan

Discipline: I insecticide Trial Status: E established

Trial Location City: ORLAND Country: USA United States State/Prov.: California Postal Code: 95963

Directions: COUNTY ROAD U AND 27 AT HEADQUARTERS

Conducted Under GLP: No Conducted Under GEP: No

Keywords: efficacy of olive fruit fly control

54 Dec-9-2018 (OLIVE FF-OC HENNING) ARM 2018.5 Site Description Page 2 of 12 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. HENNING RANCH SITE Trial ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Location: ORLAND Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Conclusions: The olive fruit fly infestation was light this season. There was a freeze that also affected the crop. The crop was very light this year.

The grower did not harvest the orchard this year because the crop was light.

Next year would propose to set up the trial in a non replicated block design placing all treatments within a block side. The pest lays eggs in a sporadic pattern.

Contacts Study Director: California Olive Committee

Investigator: Debra Keenan Organization: Research 2000 City+State/Prov: chico, CA Cooperator/Landowner Cooperator: Gus Henning Role: FALDOW Crop Description Crop 1: OLVEU Olea europaea Olive BBCH Scale: BPER

Pest Description Pest 1 Type: I Code: BATCSP Batocera sp. Common Name: Batocera sp. Description: Olive Fruit Fly (B. oleae)

Trial Initiation Comments: THERE WAS A SEVERE FREEZE IN THE AREA EARLY FEBRUARY. THE BLOOM AND OLIVE PRODUCTION WAS AFFECTED.

Comment: Normal practices but no insecticides were applied to the trial area.

Comment: THERE WAS A FROST EARLY IN THE SEASON, THIS AFFECTED THE CROP. THIS CROP WAS VERY LIGHT. THE GROWER DID NOT HARVEST THE AREA.

Application Description A B C D E F Application Date: Apr-19-2018 May-10-2018 May-21-2018 May-30-2018 Jun-11-2018 Sep-12-2018 Appl. Start Time: 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 11:00 AM 7:00 AM Appl. Stop Time: 10:00 AM 9:30 AM 8:30 AM 9:30 AM 12:30 PM 8:30 AM Application Method: HANDGUN GF 120 GF 120 GF 120 GF 120 GF 120 Application Timing: PEST PEST PEST PEST PEST PEST Application Placement: CANOPY GF 120 GF 120 GF 120 GF 120 GF 120 Applied By: D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN Air Temperature, Unit: 65 F 66 F 68 F 71 F 82 F 6230 F % Relative Humidity: 20 10 20 30 10 20 Wind Velocity, Unit: 1 MPH 0 MPH 1 MPH 1 MPH 1 MPH 1 MPH Wind Direction: SE NA SE SE SE SE Dew Presence (Y/N): N no N no N no N no N no N no Soil Temperature, Unit: 59 F 60 F 61 F 62 F 66 F 60 F Soil Moisture: DAMP DRY DRY DAMP DRY DRY

55 Dec-9-2018 (OLIVE FF-OC HENNING) ARM 2018.5 Site Description Page 3 of 12 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. HENNING RANCH SITE Trial ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Location: ORLAND Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Crop Stage At Each Application A B C D E F Crop 1 Code, BBCH Scale: OLVEU BPER OLVEU BPER OLVEU BPER OLVEU BPER OLVEU BPER OLVEU BPER

Pest Stage At Each Application ABCDEF Pest 1 Code, Type, Scale: BATCSP I BATCSP I BATCSP I BATCSP I BATCSP I BATCSP I

Application Equipment A B C D E F Appl. Equipment: REARS BACKPACK BACKPACK BACKPACK BACKPACK BACKPACK Equipment Type: HANDGU GF 120 GF 120 GF 120 GF 120 GF 120 Operation Pressure, Unit: 300 PSI Nozzle Type: DISC HOLLOW HOLLOW HOLLOW HOLLOW HOLLOW Nozzle Size: D6 Carrier: WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER Spray Volume, Unit: 100 GAL/AC 1 GAL/AC 1 GAL/AC 1 GAL/AC 1 GAL/AC 1 GAL/AC Mix Size, Unit: 4.686 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL

Trt No Treatment Application Comment GF 120 ALSO APPLIED ON 6-25-2018, 7-6-2018, 8-22-2018, 9-1-2018,

Date By Notes Dec-9-2018 Debra Keena Automatically added by ARM: Trial Status updated to 'E' when Rating Date entered.

Pest Type I Insect I Insect I Insect Pest Code BATCSP BATCSP BACTSP Pest Name Batocera sp. Batocera sp. Bactra sp. Crop Code OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU BBCH Scale BPER BPER BPER BPER BPER BPER Crop Scientific Name Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Crop Name Olive Olive Olive Olive Olive Olive Part Rated olive c tree c olive c tree c OLIVE C TREE C Rating Date Aug-30-2018 Aug-30-2018 Sep-19-2018 Sep-19-2018 Oct-1-2018 Oct-1-2018 Rating Type COUINS phygen COUINS phygen COUINS PHYGEM Rating Unit % 0-10 % 0-10 % 0-10 Number of Subsamples 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assessed By D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN Days After First/Last Applic. 133 80 133 80 153 7 153 7 165 19 165 19 ARM Action Codes P P P Trt Treatment Rate Appl No. Name Rate Unit Code Plot 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Untreated 101 1.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 210 2.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 308 4.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 401 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 507 2.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 608 5.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Mean = 3.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 5.0 0.0 2 GF120 1 fl oz/item ABCDEF 111 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 212 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 306 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 404 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 508 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 606 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean = 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 3 Danitol 16 fl oz/a AB 106 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 201 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 305 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 408 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 506 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 609 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Mean = 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0

56 Dec-9-2018 (OLIVE FF-OC HENNING) ARM 2018.5 Assessment Data Summary Page 4 of 12 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. HENNING RANCH SITE Trial ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Location: ORLAND Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Pest Type I Insect I Insect I Insect Pest Code BATCSP BATCSP BACTSP Pest Name Batocera sp. Batocera sp. Bactra sp. Crop Code OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU BBCH Scale BPER BPER BPER BPER BPER BPER Crop Scientific Name Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Crop Name Olive Olive Olive Olive Olive Olive Part Rated olive c tree c olive c tree c OLIVE C TREE C Rating Date Aug-30-2018 Aug-30-2018 Sep-19-2018 Sep-19-2018 Oct-1-2018 Oct-1-2018 Rating Type COUINS phygen COUINS phygen COUINS PHYGEM Rating Unit % 0-10 % 0-10 % 0-10 Number of Subsamples 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assessed By D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN Days After First/Last Applic. 133 80 133 80 153 7 153 7 165 19 165 19 ARM Action Codes P P P Trt Treatment Rate Appl No. Name Rate Unit Code Plot 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 Harvanta 16 fl oz/a AD 103 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 209 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 311 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 407 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 502 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 612 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean = 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 Harvanta 24 fl oz/a AD 107 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 204 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 302 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 409 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 501 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 604 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean = 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 6 Asail 8 fl oz/a AD 104 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GF120 1 fl oz/item BDEF 202 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 303 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 412 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 509 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 611 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean = 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 7 Avaunt 4 oz wt/a AD 110 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 208 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 309 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 411 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 504 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 610 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Mean = 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 8 Avaunt 5 oz wt/a AD 108 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 203 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 304 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 406 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 512 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 605 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean = 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 Minecto Pro 12 fl oz/a AD 109 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 207 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 310 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 402 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 505 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 603 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean = 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 10 Sivanto 14 fl oz/a AD 102 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 206 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 301 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 405 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 511 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 607 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean = 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0

57 Dec-9-2018 (OLIVE FF-OC HENNING) ARM 2018.5 Assessment Data Summary Page 5 of 12 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. HENNING RANCH SITE Trial ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Location: ORLAND Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Pest Type I Insect I Insect I Insect Pest Code BATCSP BATCSP BACTSP Pest Name Batocera sp. Batocera sp. Bactra sp. Crop Code OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU OLVEU BBCH Scale BPER BPER BPER BPER BPER BPER Crop Scientific Name Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Crop Name Olive Olive Olive Olive Olive Olive Part Rated olive c tree c olive c tree c OLIVE C TREE C Rating Date Aug-30-2018 Aug-30-2018 Sep-19-2018 Sep-19-2018 Oct-1-2018 Oct-1-2018 Rating Type COUINS phygen COUINS phygen COUINS PHYGEM Rating Unit % 0-10 % 0-10 % 0-10 Number of Subsamples 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assessed By D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN D KEENAN Days After First/Last Applic. 133 80 133 80 153 7 153 7 165 19 165 19 ARM Action Codes P P P Trt Treatment Rate Appl No. Name Rate Unit Code Plot 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 Lorsban 4 fl oz/a AD 105 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 211 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 307 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 410 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 503 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 601 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean = 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 GF120 1 fl oz/item ACE 112 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Harvanta 16 fl oz/a B 205 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Asail 8 fl oz/a D 312 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Danitol 16 fl oz/a F 403 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 510 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 602 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean = 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 Pest Type I, Insect, G-BYRI7, G-InsStg = Insect Pest Code BATCSP, Batocera sp., Batocera sp. = US BACTSP, Bactra sp., Bactra sp. = US Crop Code OLVEU, BPER, Olea europaea, Olive = US Part Rated TREE = tree c = Crop is Part Rated Rating Type COUINS = count - insect phygen = phytotoxicity - general / injury Rating Unit % = percent 0-10 = 0-10 index/scale ARM Action Codes P = Rating scale of 0 to 100 (e.g. % control or injury) Pest Type I Insect Pest Code BATCSP Pest Name Batocera sp. Crop Code OLVEU BBCH Scale BPER Crop Scientific Name Olea europaea Crop Name Olive Part Rated olive c Rating Date Aug-30-2018 Rating Type COUINS Rating Unit % Number of Subsamples 1 Assessed By D KEENAN Days After First/Last Applic. 133 80 ARM Action Codes P Trt Treatment Rate Appl No. Name Rate Unit Code 1 1 Untreated 3.0 a 2 GF120 1 fl oz/item ABCDEF 0.2 b 3 Danitol 16 fl oz/a AB 0.2 b

58 Dec-9-2018 (OLIVE FF-OC HENNING) ARM 2018.5 AOV Means Table Page 6 of 12 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. HENNING RANCH SITE Trial ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Location: ORLAND Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Pest Type I Insect Pest Code BATCSP Pest Name Batocera sp. Crop Code OLVEU BBCH Scale BPER Crop Scientific Name Olea europaea Crop Name Olive Part Rated olive c Rating Date Aug-30-2018 Rating Type COUINS Rating Unit % Number of Subsamples 1 Assessed By D KEENAN Days After First/Last Applic. 133 80 ARM Action Codes P Trt Treatment Rate Appl No. Name Rate Unit Code 1 5 Harvanta 24 fl oz/a AD 0.2 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 7 Avaunt 4 oz wt/a AD 0.2 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 9 Minecto Pro 12 fl oz/a AD 0.2 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 12 GF120 1 fl oz/item ACE 0.2 b Harvanta 16 fl oz/a B Asail 8 fl oz/a D Danitol 16 fl oz/a F 4 Harvanta 16 fl oz/a AD 0.0 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 6 Asail 8 fl oz/a AD 0.0 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BDEF 8 Avaunt 5 oz wt/a AD 0.0 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 10 Sivanto 14 fl oz/a AD 0.0 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 11 Lorsban 4 fl oz/a AD 0.0 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF LSD P=.10 0.53 Standard Deviation 0.54 CV 163.48 Levene's F 7.703 Levene's Prob(F) 0.001* Skewness 3.5435* Kurtosis 12.9652*

Replicate F 0.449 Replicate Prob(F) 0.8122 Treatment F 14.388 Treatment Prob(F) 0.0001

59 Dec-9-2018 (OLIVE FF-OC HENNING) ARM 2018.5 AOV Means Table Page 7 of 12 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. HENNING RANCH SITE Trial ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Location: ORLAND Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Pest Type Pest Code Pest Name Crop Code OLVEU BBCH Scale BPER Crop Scientific Name Olea europaea Crop Name Olive Part Rated tree c Rating Date Aug-30-2018 Rating Type phygen Rating Unit 0-10 Number of Subsamples 1 Assessed By D KEENAN Days After First/Last Applic. 133 80 ARM Action Codes Trt Treatment Rate Appl No. Name Rate Unit Code 2 1 Untreated 0.0 - 2 GF120 1 fl oz/item ABCDEF 0.0 - 3 Danitol 16 fl oz/a AB 0.0 - 4 Harvanta 16 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 5 Harvanta 24 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 6 Asail 8 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BDEF 7 Avaunt 4 oz wt/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 8 Avaunt 5 oz wt/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 9 Minecto Pro 12 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 10 Sivanto 14 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 11 Lorsban 4 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 12 GF120 1 fl oz/item ACE 0.0 - Harvanta 16 fl oz/a B Asail 8 fl oz/a D Danitol 16 fl oz/a F LSD P=.10 . Standard Deviation 0.00 CV 0.0 Levene's F 0.00 Levene's Prob(F) 0.00* Skewness . Kurtosis .

Replicate F 0.000 Replicate Prob(F) 1.0000 Treatment F 0.000 Treatment Prob(F) 1.0000

60 Dec-9-2018 (OLIVE FF-OC HENNING) ARM 2018.5 AOV Means Table Page 8 of 12 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. HENNING RANCH SITE Trial ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Location: ORLAND Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Pest Type I Insect Pest Code BATCSP Pest Name Batocera sp. Crop Code OLVEU BBCH Scale BPER Crop Scientific Name Olea europaea Crop Name Olive Part Rated olive c Rating Date Sep-19-2018 Rating Type COUINS Rating Unit % Number of Subsamples 1 Assessed By D KEENAN Days After First/Last Applic. 153 7 ARM Action Codes P Trt Treatment Rate Appl No. Name Rate Unit Code 3 1 Untreated 5.5 a 3 Danitol 16 fl oz/a AB 0.5 b 9 Minecto Pro 12 fl oz/a AD 0.5 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 10 Sivanto 14 fl oz/a AD 0.5 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 2 GF120 1 fl oz/item ABCDEF 0.3 b 4 Harvanta 16 fl oz/a AD 0.3 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 5 Harvanta 24 fl oz/a AD 0.3 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 6 Asail 8 fl oz/a AD 0.3 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BDEF 7 Avaunt 4 oz wt/a AD 0.3 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 8 Avaunt 5 oz wt/a AD 0.3 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 11 Lorsban 4 fl oz/a AD 0.3 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 12 GF120 1 fl oz/item ACE 0.3 b Harvanta 16 fl oz/a B Asail 8 fl oz/a D Danitol 16 fl oz/a F LSD P=.10 0.51 Standard Deviation 0.53 CV 65.31 Levene's F 0.682 Levene's Prob(F) 0.75 Skewness 2.7612* Kurtosis 7.246*

Replicate F 3.934 Replicate Prob(F) 0.0040 Treatment F 47.500 Treatment Prob(F) 0.0001

61 Dec-9-2018 (OLIVE FF-OC HENNING) ARM 2018.5 AOV Means Table Page 9 of 12 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. HENNING RANCH SITE Trial ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Location: ORLAND Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Pest Type Pest Code Pest Name Crop Code OLVEU BBCH Scale BPER Crop Scientific Name Olea europaea Crop Name Olive Part Rated tree c Rating Date Sep-19-2018 Rating Type phygen Rating Unit 0-10 Number of Subsamples 1 Assessed By D KEENAN Days After First/Last Applic. 153 7 ARM Action Codes Trt Treatment Rate Appl No. Name Rate Unit Code 4 1 Untreated 0.0 - 2 GF120 1 fl oz/item ABCDEF 0.0 - 3 Danitol 16 fl oz/a AB 0.0 - 4 Harvanta 16 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 5 Harvanta 24 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 6 Asail 8 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BDEF 7 Avaunt 4 oz wt/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 8 Avaunt 5 oz wt/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 9 Minecto Pro 12 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 10 Sivanto 14 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 11 Lorsban 4 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 12 GF120 1 fl oz/item ACE 0.0 - Harvanta 16 fl oz/a B Asail 8 fl oz/a D Danitol 16 fl oz/a F LSD P=.10 . Standard Deviation 0.00 CV 0.0 Levene's F 0.00 Levene's Prob(F) 0.00* Skewness . Kurtosis .

Replicate F 0.000 Replicate Prob(F) 1.0000 Treatment F 0.000 Treatment Prob(F) 1.0000

62 Dec-9-2018 (OLIVE FF-OC HENNING) ARM 2018.5 AOV Means Table Page 10 of 12 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. HENNING RANCH SITE Trial ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Location: ORLAND Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Pest Type I Insect Pest Code BACTSP Pest Name Bactra sp. Crop Code OLVEU BBCH Scale BPER Crop Scientific Name Olea europaea Crop Name Olive Part Rated OLIVE C Rating Date Oct-1-2018 Rating Type COUINS Rating Unit % Number of Subsamples 1 Assessed By D KEENAN Days After First/Last Applic. 165 19 ARM Action Codes P Trt Treatment Rate Appl No. Name Rate Unit Code 5 1 Untreated 5.0 a 7 Avaunt 4 oz wt/a AD 0.3 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 2 GF120 1 fl oz/item ABCDEF 0.2 b 3 Danitol 16 fl oz/a AB 0.2 b 5 Harvanta 24 fl oz/a AD 0.2 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 6 Asail 8 fl oz/a AD 0.2 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BDEF 9 Minecto Pro 12 fl oz/a AD 0.2 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 10 Sivanto 14 fl oz/a AD 0.2 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 12 GF120 1 fl oz/item ACE 0.2 b Harvanta 16 fl oz/a B Asail 8 fl oz/a D Danitol 16 fl oz/a F 4 Harvanta 16 fl oz/a AD 0.0 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 8 Avaunt 5 oz wt/a AD 0.0 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 11 Lorsban 4 fl oz/a AD 0.0 b GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF LSD P=.10 0.66 Standard Deviation 0.69 CV 126.63 Levene's F 2.805 Levene's Prob(F) 0.005* Skewness 3.4036* Kurtosis 11.9188*

Replicate F 0.549 Replicate Prob(F) 0.7383 Treatment F 25.258 Treatment Prob(F) 0.0001

63 Dec-9-2018 (OLIVE FF-OC HENNING) ARM 2018.5 AOV Means Table Page 11 of 12 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. HENNING RANCH SITE Trial ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Location: ORLAND Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Pest Type Pest Code Pest Name Crop Code OLVEU BBCH Scale BPER Crop Scientific Name Olea europaea Crop Name Olive Part Rated TREE C Rating Date Oct-1-2018 Rating Type PHYGEM Rating Unit 0-10 Number of Subsamples 1 Assessed By D KEENAN Days After First/Last Applic. 165 19 ARM Action Codes Trt Treatment Rate Appl No. Name Rate Unit Code 6 1 Untreated 0.0 - 2 GF120 1 fl oz/item ABCDEF 0.0 - 3 Danitol 16 fl oz/a AB 0.0 - 4 Harvanta 16 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 5 Harvanta 24 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 6 Asail 8 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BDEF 7 Avaunt 4 oz wt/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 8 Avaunt 5 oz wt/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 9 Minecto Pro 12 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 10 Sivanto 14 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 11 Lorsban 4 fl oz/a AD 0.0 - GF120 1 fl oz/item BCEF 12 GF120 1 fl oz/item ACE 0.0 - Harvanta 16 fl oz/a B Asail 8 fl oz/a D Danitol 16 fl oz/a F LSD P=.10 . Standard Deviation 0.00 CV 0.0 Levene's F 0.00 Levene's Prob(F) 0.00* Skewness . Kurtosis .

Replicate F 0.000 Replicate Prob(F) 1.0000 Treatment F 0.000 Treatment Prob(F) 1.0000 Pest Type I, Insect, G-BYRI7, G-InsStg = Insect Pest Code BATCSP, Batocera sp., Batocera sp. = US BACTSP, Bactra sp., Bactra sp. = US Crop Code OLVEU, BPER, Olea europaea, Olive = US Part Rated TREE = tree c = Crop is Part Rated Rating Type COUINS = count - insect phygen = phytotoxicity - general / injury

64 Dec-9-2018 (OLIVE FF-OC HENNING) ARM 2018.5 AOV Means Table Page 12 of 12 Research 2000 Olive fruit fly control. Efficacy program to combat resistance. HENNING RANCH SITE Trial ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Location: ORLAND Trial Year: 2018 Protocol ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Investigator: Debra Keenan Project ID: OLIVE FF-OC HENNING Study Director: California Olive Committee Sponsor Contact: Research 2000 Rating Unit % = percent 0-10 = 0-10 index/scale ARM Action Codes P = Rating scale of 0 to 100 (e.g. % control or injury)

Trial Map Treatment Description Trt Code Description 1 CHK 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

65 ANNUAL RESEARCH REPORT California Olive Board and California Olive Oil Commission November 2018

Project Year: 2018 Anticipated Duration of Project: 2nd of 3 years Principal Investigators: J. E. Adaskaveg Cooperating: D. Thompson, K. Nguyen, and H. Förster Project Title: Epidemiology and management of olive knot caused by Pseudomonas savastanoi pv. savastanoi Keywords: Bactericides, copper enhancing compounds, antimicrobial natural products, biological controls

JUSTIFICATION/ BACKGROUND Olive knot caused by the bacterium Pseudomonas savastanoi pv. savastanoi (Psv) is a serious disease of olives (Olea europaea) worldwide (8). The pathogen enters through wounds causing outgrowths (knots, tumors, galls) on branches 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 (6). Psv can survive epiphytically on olives but the main sources of inoculum are bacteria living within knots (7). 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 (4), frost, and 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. After entering its woody host, the pathogen actively induces knot formation through the production of indoleacetic acid (IAA) and cytokinins (2). 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. None of the currently grown olive cultivars is resistant to the pathogen (5). Management of olive knot is difficult, and growers rely on applications of copper-based bactericides as the only effective foliar treatment. Manual application of cresol- and xylenol-based compounds (Gallex) to knots can eliminate the knot pathogen but is unfeasible on a commercial scale. Copper has been extensively used in olive production for many years for the control of diseases such as peacock spot and olive knot. Reliance on a single active ingredient has led to our detection of copper resistance in Psv strains from a commercial olive orchard. The incidence of copper resistance is currently very low, accounting for only 2% of the total strains collected in different olive growing regions of California. When resistant strains were inoculated to Arbequina and Manzanillo olive wounds, application of copper provided reduced or no control as compared to inoculation with a sensitive strain. Copper-resistant strains caused less disease on leaf scars as compared to Cu-sensitive strains, but still resulted in a high incidence of disease over a range of inoculum concentrations. Therefore, there is a potential risk of copper resistance spreading with continued and sole use of copper. This necessitates the development of new bactericides or copper-activity-enhancing materials to overcome resistance. The latter strategy has proven to be effective for walnut blight management where copper resistance in Xanthomonas arboricola pv. juglandis is common and copper-mancozeb mixtures have provided exceptional control. Mancozeb can no longer be registered on new crops but other copper- enhancing alternatives can be evaluated. Salicylidene benzoylhydrazone (SBH) was recently discovered to display synergism when combined with copper against Alternaria solani causing early blight of tomatoes. We performed preliminary tests with a derivative of this molecule with promising results with 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 themselves at the same concentrations were not effective. Field trials in 2017 on managing olive knot, SBH-copper, however, did not improve performance of copper. Other derivatives of SBH will be supplied by Dow AgroSciences, and these will be tested in 2018. Other potential bactericides have also been made available to us by agrochemical registrants in 2017. These include a nanoparticle zinc product called Zinkicide and experimental inhibitors of type III secretion systems in plant pathogenic bacteria. The latter compounds are novel in their mode of action. They act on the

66 mechanism that delivers bacterial proteins into the host cells that are necessary for Pseudomonas species to cause disease. Currently, we are testing Zinkicide and three experimental type III secretion system inhibitors. 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 (1) and Pseudomonas species 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, including in a commercial application to inoculated branches. Kasugamycin is currently federally registered and in 2018 received California registration on pome fruit, cherry, and walnut crops, whereas registration on olives, peaches, and almonds is pending for late 2019. Kasumin – olive is still in the IR-4 program with the final report and submission to the EPA pending in fourth quarter 2018. Kasugamycin would greatly complement current copper sprays and could be used in rotation or mixtures with copper. Oxytetracycline was also submitted to IR-4 and is in the field trial phase of the IR-4 program for establishing tolerances. We will conduct additional studies with oxytetracycline to potentially improve its efficacy by using registrant-recommended adjuvants. 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 biopesticides and food additives may provide new modes of action for managing olive knot. Biopesticides such as Serenade contain the gram-positive bacterium Bacillus subtilis (strain QST 713) that produces various compounds that are antagonistic against a broad range of fungal and bacterial organisms. In our efficacy trials, Serenade and Serenade-copper mixtures, however, were not effective at recommended rates.

Table 1. Chemicals used for evaluation as potential bactericides against olive knot

Treatments Tradename/experimental No. Treatment name Chemical class/use 1 Lactic acid Lactic acid Organic acid 2 Citric acid Citric acid Organic acid 3 Zinc Zinkicide Zinc nanoparticle 4 Zinc thiadiazole ZTD Zinc thiadiazole 5 Oxytetracycline Fireline Antibiotic (tetracycline) 6 Kasugamycin Kasumin Antibiotic (aminoglycoside) 7 Copper hydroxide ChampION++ Copper 8 TS-28 10% SC 5 mM TS-28 Type III secretion system inhibitor 9 TS-108 20% SC 5 mM TS-108 Type III secretion system inhibitor 10 TS-153 10% SC 5 mM TS-153 Type III secretion system inhibitor 11 Nisin Niprosin Food preservative 12 Epsilon-poly-L-lysine e-Polylysine Food preservative 13 Nisin Alginate Nisin Alginate Food preservative 14 Epsilon-poly-L-lysine Alginate e-poly-L-lysine Alginate Food preservative 15 DAS1 DAS1 Derivative of salicylidene benzoylhydrazone

Adjuvants No. Treatment Tradename Chemical/use A Adjuvant Tactic Surfactant/sticking agent B Adjuvant Nu-Film P Spreader/sticker agent C Adjuvant Regulaid Nonionic surfactant D UV stabilizer --- Zinc oxide

Several food additives that are considered ‘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

67 olive growers with more resources for managing olive knot. In 2017, we evaluated nisin, Ɛ-poly-L-lysine, and lactic acid and all showed similar efficacy to copper in reducing olive knot on leaf scars, but not on lateral wounds. This information is still valuable because rotational programs could be developed with different modes of actions for different phases of the disease, i.e., leaf scars or lateral wounds occurring during leaf drop or harvest and pruning, respectively. These materials are registerable for conventional and possibly organic treatments.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 1) Develop new bactericides and potential enhancers of copper activity against Psv a) In-vitro sensitivity of Psv to Zinkicide, Type III secretion system inhibitors, and copper mixtures with new SBH derivatives (using selected ratios). b) Efficacy of new bactericides in comparison with kasugamycin for the management of olive knot caused by copper-sensitive and -resistant strains of Psv in field studies. i) Zinkicide ii) Potential enhancers of copper activity - new SBH derivatives. iii) Type III secretion system inhibitors iv) Oxytetracycline formulations in combination with adjuvants recommended by the registrant. 2) Evaluate several food additives and a sanitizer for the control of olive knot a) Determine the efficacy of the GRAS food additives nisin, Ɛ-poly-L-lysine, and the GRAS sanitizers lactic and citric acid in field studies for the management of olive knot. 3) Continue to support the registration of the antibiotics kasugamycin and oxytetracycline - UV blockers and stabilizers and EPA policy.

PLANS AND PROCEDURES 1) Develop new bactericides and potential enhancers of copper activity against Psv. 1a. In vitro sensitivity of two Psv strains against selected food additives and ZTD. The toxicity of nisin, Ɛ-poly-L-lysine, and a zinc thiadiazole (ZTD) to a copper-sensitive and a -resistant strain of Psv was evaluated in a direct exposure assay. Bacterial suspensions were mixed with solutions of each of the toxicant as selected concentrations and incubated for 60 s. For the control, water was used instead of the toxicant. Aliquots were then diluted 1:100 with sterile distilled water, and plated onto King’s medium B. The number of colonies on each plate were enumerated after 2 days of growth. 1b. Evaluation of bactericides and experimental treatments in field studies. Zinkicide, copper-SBH mixtures, Type III secretion system inhibitors, oxytetracycline, and other treatments (Table 1) were tested in the field on Arbequina and Manzanillo olives at UC Davis or in a commercial planting. Lateral wounds on 1- 2-year-old twigs were made using a scalpel and removing the bark to expose cambial tissue. Leaf scars were made by pulling leaves off the same twigs. In addition, wounds from natural leaf drop were used in some studies. Treatments were sprayed onto wounds before inoculation with a suspension of copper-sensitive or - resistant Psv strains. Oxytetracycline was used in combination with recommended adjuvants because it is especially vulnerable to UV-degradation. Treatments were compared to Kasumin and copper. The efficacy of treatments was assessed as the percent incidence of knots forming on treated, inoculated wounds as compared to wounds that were treated with water and inoculated (i.e., controls). 2) Evaluate several food additives for the control of olive knot. Field tests were conducted on Arbequina and Manzanillo olives to evaluate the efficacy of nisin, Ɛ-poly-L-lysine, and lactic acid against Psv. The same wounding, treatment application, inoculation, and evaluation procedures were used as described above. 3) Continue to support the registration of the antibiotics kasugamycin and oxytetracycline. An inter- commodity and industry group continued to work with the Minor Crop Farmer Alliance to recommend an EPA policy change towards the use of antibiotics in plant agriculture. Specifically, a suggested new internal EPA Guidance Document (GD) for use of antibiotics in plant agriculture was developed based on science and submitted to EPA. Historically, EPA GD 152 for registration of antibiotics in animal husbandry is used for all requests in agriculture. Additionally, we will continue to work with a USDA working group to address CODEX initiatives for establishing policies on all antibiotic use in agriculture including animal and plant uses.

68 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1a. In vitro sensitivity of two Psv strains against selected food additives and ZTD. Direct contact assays demonstrated a high in vitro toxicity of Ɛ-poly-L-lysine against copper-sensitive and - resistant strains of Psv (Fig. 1). Incubation in 10 ppm Ɛ-poly-L-lysine for 60 sec completely inhibited growth of both strains. In contrast, a concentration of 1000 ppm of nisin was required to completely inhibit growth of the sensitive strain, and growth of the resistant strain was reduced by 2.5 log. ZTD was not effective in these studies. Thus, Ɛ-poly-L-lysine and possibly nisin were identified as the most promising treatments for managing olive knot. These compounds are antimicrobials for processed food use and have not been formulated for agricultural use. 1b and 2). Evaluation of bactericides, food additives, and other experimental treatments in field studies. In contrast to the high toxicity of Ɛ-poly-L-lysine in in vitro studies, this compound showed only low to no activity in field studies on the management of olive knot (Fig. 2A, B). An attempt was made to make the compound more persistent, and we prepared an alginate formulation that was described in the literature to provide environmental stability. Additionally, we added zinc oxide to this formulation to increase UV stability. Still, this formulation was also not effective (Figs. 3, 4). Thus, in our future studies we will explore other methods to make Ɛ-poly-L-lysine more effective in the field. The other food preservative, Nisin, did not show efficacy in reducing knot development (Fig. 2). The nisin-alginate-zinc oxide formulation sometimes improved efficacy (Fig. 4), but not at other times (Figs. 3, 4). The third food preservative, lactic acid, was tested only in one trial, and a moderate reduction in knot development was observed (Fig. 2A, B). Thus, this compound deserves further evaluation, possibly including it in mixtures. Citric acid, however, was not effective (Fig. 2A, B). Three type III secretion system inhibitors were evaluated in four studies using copper-sensitive and/or -resistant strains of the pathogen (Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6). TS-108 and TS-153 were moderately effective in one study on Manzanillo olive (Fig 6A), TS-108 and TS-153 were moderately effective in another study (Fig. 5), but in other cases, they were not effective. These inhibitors were provided to us by other researchers, and possibly other inhibitor formulations could be more effective. The zinc nanoparticle product Zinkicide was evaluated in two studies and showed good to very good efficacy on lateral wounds (Figs. 5, 6). This product, however, has currently no registrant that is willing to cover the expenses for a registration. Furthermore, nanoparticle products, may be difficult to obtain EPA approval due to the number of toxicity and environmental testing required. Zinc thiadiazole was not effective in reducing olive knot development (Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6) and also did not improve copper activity (Figs. 3, 4) in preventing or reducing olive knot. The antibiotic oxytetracycline (FireLine) was evaluated by itself or in combination with the recommended adjuvant Tactic. Results were variable with no efficacy when used by itself (Fig. 2A, B) or with Tactic (Figs. 2B, 3) or resulting in good efficacy using Tactic on lateral wounds (Figs. 2A, 4). Thus, this antibiotic still has potential considering its high in vitro toxicity. The other antibiotic, kasugamycin (Kasumin), was very effective (Figs. 2A, B, 6A) or highly effective (Fig. 5) on lateral wounds and sometimes also showed good efficacy on artificial leaf scar wounds (Fig. 5). Statistically, Kasumin was mostly similar in efficacy to copper. Adding adjuvants like Tactic (Figs. 2A, B) or Nufilm (Figs. 3, 4) did not improve efficacy of Kasumin. Copper (ChampION) was highly effective (Figs. 2A, 3, 4, 5, 6) on lateral and leaf scar wounds when used by itself, but efficacy was reduced when inoculations were done with a copper- resistant strain of Psv (Fig. 2B) The addition of DAS-1, a potential enhancer of copper activity, did not improve the performance of copper (Figs. 3, 4). Copper-Kasumin mixtures were similarly effective as either compound by itself or more effective than either copper alone (Figs. 3, 4). This mixture will provide an excellent strategy for the most effective olive knot management and to prevent or delay the spread of resistance against each component. One study was done treating inoculated natural leaf scars with ChampION, Kasumin, or a ChampION-Kasumin mixture. In contrast to the studies discussed above with artificial leaf scar injuries where leaves were detached by pulling off, the three treatments were highly effective in protecting natural leaf scars from infection by a copper-resistant strain, and Kasumin completely prevented knot development (Fig. 7). Although these natural leaf scar assays are very laborious to perform (every leaf scar has to be

69 ANNUAL RESEARCH REPORT California Olive Board and California Olive Oil Commission November 2018

70 inoculated and treated separately in 20 to 25 replications), these assays need to be repeated and also be used for some of the other treatments under evaluation (e.g., Ɛ-poly-L-lysine, nisin, oxytetracycline). 3) Continue to support the registration of the antibiotics kasugamycin and oxytetracycline. Kasugamycin was first federally registered on pome fruits, and in 2018, it received California registration on pome fruit, cherry, and walnut crops. Registration on olives, peaches, and almonds is pending for late 2019. The petition for Kasumin on olive was still in the IR-4 program this summer and the final report and submission to the EPA are pending in fourth quarter of 2018. This was due to complications with extractions of kasugamycin from large amounts of oil in some olive samples that caused delays. Working with IR-4 and Arysta, we had additional procedures for alternative extraction procedures sent to the GLP residue lab to resolve the difficulties. I also attended the IR-4 meeting and met with EPA representatives.I re-emphasized the need for a separate guidance document to GD152 that is specific for registration of bactericides for plant agriculture. Currently, GD152 is for all agriculture, but more importantly, was developed for registration of antibiotics for animal agriculture by USDA and FDA. With the extensive change-over in personnel at EPA, these meetings are critical in moving forward on these issues. References 1. Adaskaveg, J.E., Förster, H., and Wade, M.L. 2011. Effectiveness of kasugamycin against Erwinia amylovora and its potential use for managing fire blight of pear. Plant Dis. 95:448-454. 2. Comai, L., and Kosuge, T. 1980. Involvement of plasmid deoxyribonucleic acid in indoleacetic acid synthesis in Pseudomonas savastanoi. J. Bacteriol. 143: 950-957. 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. doi:10.1071/AP03074

71 72 73 74 75 Department of Plant Pathology Relevant AES/CE Project No.: 11103864

University of California Division of Agricultural Sciences ANNUAL RESEARCH PROGRESS REPORT California Olive Committee/ Olive Oil Commission of California Project Year: 2018 Project Leader: Dr. J. E. Adaskaveg, ProfessorDepartment of Microbiology and Plant Pathology University of California, Riverside Riverside, CA 92521 (O) 951-827-3880, FAX: 951-827-7577, (M) 951-288-9312 [email protected]

Title: Evaluation of new fungicides for control of olive leaf spot (peacock spot)

Introduction. Olive leaf spot or peacock spot, caused by the fungus Fusicladium oleagineum (syn. Spilocea oleaginea, Venturia oleaginea), occurs sporadically on olive trees in California. In years with favorable environmental conditions, an orchard may lose 9 to 15% of its leaves and 10 to 20% of fruiting twigs if the disease is not managed. Excessive leaf loss can also result in more olive knot because leaf scars are sites for bacterial infection. Symptoms most commonly develop on the leaf blade but are also found on petioles, fruit, and fruit peduncles (stems). At first, lesions are inconspicuous, superficial, sooty blotches. Later, they become dark green to black and circular, and form conidia. Spots are surrounded by yellow halos. Lesions resemble the spots on the tail of a peacock, and hence the name peacock spot. With numerous lesions, the leaf becomes chlorotic and falls. Leaves in the lower canopy where the humidity is higher are more severely affected, resulting in greater defoliation. Defoliated twigs often die later in the summer. Leaf infections occur on the upper surface and seldom expand beyond the epidermal layer. Once the leaf drops, however, the fungus colonizes the internal tissues forming a dense mass of stromatic tissue. The sexual state of the pathogen has not been observed. Olive cultivars vary in their susceptibility. Mission is the most susceptible followed by Manzanillo and to a lesser extent Sevillano, but all cultivars including oil cultivars such as Arbequina and Arbosana may be affected by peacock spot. Leaf drop occurs mostly in late spring and summer. Infected leaves remaining on the tree start sporulating along the margins of lesions in the fall. Rainfall and wind-driven rain are the main dissemination methods; whereas wind alone is not effective in detaching and disseminating conidia. In California, lesions start forming in the fall and winter, but most disease develops in the spring. Rainfall is essential for infections to occur regardless of the season. Temperature is important but often is not limiting the development of the pathogen. High temperatures are more limiting to spore germination and mycelial growth than low temperatures. The optimum temperature for growth of the fungus is 21ºC, but growth can occur at 6 to 28ºC. The minimum duration of leaf wetness for spore germination is 48 h at 16ºC, 24 h at 20ºC, or 36 h at 24ºC. The incubation period for symptom development is 12 to 19 days over a temperature range of 10ºC to 25ºC. Currently available chemicals for managing the disease are copper and lime sulfur. Copper is commonly used as Bordeaux mixtures or as fixed coppers to prevent phytotoxicity. Lime sulfur can also eradicate the fungus in leaf tissue. Other fungicides such as zineb are effective but no longer available in the United States. With more regulations concerning the use of copper (new

76 copper limits for agricultural uses for all registered crops) and lime sulfur, alternative fungicides are needed that are highly efficacious and persist for extended time periods to prevent infections over the winter and spring when rainfall results in infection periods. Therefore, we initiated field studies to evaluate alternatives including older and newer fungicides. Currently, timing of fungicide treatments in California includes a postharvest fall application before winter rains begin, and again in early spring if wet conditions continue. These timings coincide with copper treatments for olive knot management. Some researchers have indicated that spring treatments are less effective, but this needs to be further substantiated.

OBJECTIVES 1. Evaluate the performance of new and older fungicides in field trials. a) Dithicarbamates (ziram), chlorinated hydrocarbons (chlorothalonil), and phthalimides (captan) (FRAC codes M3, M4, M5), DMIs (FRAC 3), SDHIs (FRAC 7), QoIs (FRAC 11), dodine (FRAC U12), polyoxins (FRAC 19), or mixtures such as FRAC 3/11, FRAC 3/7, FRAC 7/11, and FRAC 3/19. 2. Evaluate application timing of selected treatments. a) Fall, spring, or fall and spring. 3. Evaluate new fungicides for their in vitro activity. a) Determine the in vitro activity of selected fungicides that are effective in field trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Evaluate the performance of new and older fungicides in field trials. In studies in two commercial Ascolano or Manzanillo olive orchards where the disease is known to occur, fungicides including ziram (FRAC M3), copper (Champ, FRAC M1), captan (FRAC M4), chlorothalonil (Bravo, FRAC M5), difenoconazole (Inspire, FRAC 3), polyoxin-D (Ph-D, FRAC 19), and dodine (Syllit, FRAC U12) were applied in combination with 2% Omni Oil (in the first two applications) using an air- blast sprayer (100 gal/A) on Dec. 20, 2017, Feb. 7, 2018, and Oct. 19, 2018. There were four replications for each treatment in a randomized complete block design. Disease incidence was evaluated on 5-1-18. For this, eight 15- to 25-cm-long terminal twigs were collected from two sides of the tree, and the number of diseased and healthy leaves was counted. Data were analyzed statistically using ANOVA and mean separation procedures of SAS 9.4. Evaluate application timing of selected treatments. A field trial on Arbequina olive was established with applications of selected fungicides on 2-8-18 (in combination with 2% Omni Oil) or 10-19-18. Disease will be evaluated in the spring of 2019. Submission of fungicides to the IR-4 program. Based on the results of our efficacy trials on peacock spot (see below) and in coordination with the research project on the management of the newly described Neofabraea and Phlyctema diseases of olive in California (project leader is F. Trouillas, funded by OOCC), fungicides were identified that are potentially registerable, have different modes of action, have low resistance potential, and are efficacious against the three diseases. Additionally, registrants of each fungicide were contacted for approval for the proposed usage on olive and proposed labels were prepared. Subsequently, an IR-4 nomination was made based on the proposed usage (rates, timing, etc.) and IPM compatibility. An emergency registration was also requested and coordinated with OOCC. The PI of this COC project traveled to the IR-4 Food Use Workshop in St. Louis, MO, in September 2018 to defend the nominations.

77 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Evaluate the performance of new and older fungicides in field trials. Among the two trial sites where fungicides were applied for evaluation of their efficacy against peacock spot, the disease only developed in the orchard with cv. Manzanillo that is considered more susceptible to the disease. Typical symptoms were present on leaves. On untreated control trees, 21% of the leaves were diseased. Among treatments evaluated in this trial, only Inspire significantly reduced the disease (10.1% incidence) compared to the control (Fig. 1). A numerical reduction in incidence was observed for Ziram, Captan, and Champ. These results are encouraging because application timings in the first year of the study were done late (Dec. 20, 2017) due to the approval of this project in early December of 2017. At this time, major infection periods likely had already occurred, and protective treatments no longer could inhibit disease development. The efficacy of Inspire in these late applications can be attributed to its local systemic and post-infection activity. Because most infections of the peacock spot pathogen occur in the fall, the late-winter applications in early February 2018 may not have been as effective. Applications at these trial sites are being continued, and in 2018, a fall application was done in mid-October. Disease will be evaluated again in the spring of 2019. Thus, in these 1.5- to 2-year-long trials, the pathogen will go through its complete disease cycle, and with two annual applications, the efficacy of these treatments can be most accurately established.

Evaluate application timing of selected treatments. A field trial was established with spring and fall timings, and results are pending in spring of 2019. Evaluate new fungicides for their in vitro activity. Fungal isolations from diseased olive leaves were attempted but were not successful when done in the springtime. The pathogen is difficult to isolate because it is very slow growing and easily overgrown by contaminating micro-organisms. We will repeat our isolations in the fall of 2018 when sporulation typically occurs on leaves. Isolates will then be evaluated for their in vitro sensitivities to selected fungicides. Submission of fungicides to the IR-4 program. Three fungicides were nominated to the IR-4 program in 2018: ziram (Ziram 76WDG), difenoconazole/cyprodinil (Inspire Super), and thiophanate-methyl (Topsin-M). Ziram and Inspire Super were approved for residue trials at the

78 National Food Use Workshop in Sept. for registration on olives. Strong support was provided based on the after-harvest and winter season usage with expected zero to limit-of-detection residues on the crop in the following harvest season. Ziram is a FRAC Code M3 whereas Inspire Super is a FRAC Code 3/9. Thus, integration of multi-site modes of action for both products was also established as an effective anti-resistance strategy. Topsin-M was not accepted due to a low probability of registration because of the EPA Re-registration Eligibility Decision concerning its human safety and the potential for selection of resistance in the F. oleaginum pathogen population.

79 1 | Page

Final Project Report

Project Title: A New Fruit Removal Head for an Olive Harvesting System

Project Leaders: Reza Ehsani (Professor, University of California, Merced, 5200 N. Lake Road, Merced, CA 95343, Phone: 209-228-3613, Email: [email protected])

Cooperators: Louise Ferguson (CE Pomologist, Department of Plant Sciences, UC Davis, Phone: 559-737-3061, Email: [email protected])

Problems and Significance: Production acreage of table olives, California’s signature crop, has significantly decreased in recent years due to the high cost of production and small margin of profit. Harvesting is a major cost of production for table olives. Currently, the majority of table olives are hand-harvested. Although some growers are using trunk shakers with some success, this method has not been widely utilized because older trees often have large or irregular-shaped trunks that cannot be harvested by trunk shakers. While trunk shakers work on smaller trees, growers are hesitant to remove and replace high yield producing older trees with younger trees. Mechanical harvesting, using contact canopy shakers, is the most promising method for harvesting table olives. Scientists at UC Davis have developed a prototype of a canopy shaker that has been tested and has shown some level of success. The UC Davis-designed canopy shaker is very similar to the canopy shaker used in harvesting process oranges in Florida. The proposed technique showed promising results, but it was relatively heavy and couldn’t accommodate the shape of the tree very easily. Despite all past efforts, there is still a need for a cost-effective and efficient harvesting system to match the needs of existing table olive trees.

Objectives: The ultimate goal of this study is to develop a low-cost harvesting head for the table olive industry in California. The specific objectives were as follows:

➢ Reduce the harvesting cost for table olives. ➢ Develop a cost-effective fruit removal system for existing conventional olive orchards. ➢ Ensure the harvesting system is highly efficient and does not damage the trees or the Figure 1. Evaluating trees, looking at small and fruit. large branches within the canopy.

80 2 | Page

Experimental Procedures: We visited and evaluated trees in two table olive orchards and measured the canopy size height, and width of these trees (Figure 1) to design a properly sized harvesting system. To design a proper harvesting mechanism, we reviewed the current mechanical harvesting systems to identify their strength and weaknesses.

Figure 2. Not enough trunk length for trunk shaker to attach (left); Irregular trunk shape inhibiting use of trunk shaker (right) Trunk shakers are one of the mechanical harvesting systems currently used for table olives. This type of harvester needs about 2–3 feet of clearance on the trunk to attach and subsequently shake a tree. This can be challenging, especially in conventional olive orchards where trees have not been trained for mechanical harvesting. Trees might have short trunks or an irregular tree shape, which would inhibit a shaker from attaching to these trees, as shown in Figure 2. Trunk shakers vibrates the tree trunk, and the vibration energy travels from the trunk to the large branches and small branches (Figure 3), causing olive fruit to detach. Because of its properties, olive trees tends to significantly damp the vibrational energy. Also, olive has a large detachment force to fruit weight ratio that separate it from most other fruits usually harvested by trunk shakers. This ratio can get Figure 3. Vibration dampening as the to 200-400 with oil varieties and of 100-200 with vibration travels from thick trunk to large table olive varieties (Ravetti, 2008). Due to this branches and small branches, causing olive fruit to detach. damping of energy, trunk shakers must shake trees very intensely to get a high fruit removal percentage

81 3 | Page this can be harmful to trunk and root of trees. On the other hand, we have canopy shakers which instead of vibrating tree trunk they tend to vibrate tree’s canopy. This is a much safer approach for health of trees over time but there is no commercially available canopy shaker that is specifically designed to harvest olives. Design Procedures: We designed a canopy shaker specifically for table olive trees. This design has three major advantages over current solutions. 1- It’s able to compress and squeeze tree canopy. 2- It’s adjustable to a range of tree sizes and height. 3- It can be used to harvest fruit within the row. Squeezing canopy while shaking it can improve harvest efficiency. This can reduce the amount of energy needed to harvest each tree resulting in safer harvest process for trees. Figure 4 shows a harvesting mechanism with tree wings that can squeeze canopy. It has four active harvester wheels that vibrate in a linear motion. We decided to build a simpler version with two wings and two harvesting wheels as shown in figure 5 for the first trial. This design uses one linear hydraulic cylinder to open and close each wing (two in total). A slider-crank mechanism has been utilized to move harvesting wheels back and forth to generate shaking pattern. Table 1 Figure 4 Proposed harvesting mechanism with tree wings and four shows the amplitude we can produce harvester wheels (yellow). using this crank-slider mechanism. This mechanism uses one hydraulic motor on each wing. The crank is directly connected to hydraulic motor and harvesting wheel is mounted on a slider, see figure 6.

Table 1. Range of amplitude that can be generated using the various crank radius

CRANK AMPLITUDE RADIUS (IN) (IN) 1 2 1.25 2.5 1.5 3

82 4 | Page

The whole harvesting head attached to a Bobcat 337 which has a retractable boom. Using this machine, we were able to rise our harvesting head up to 12 feet to harvest trees up to 16 feet see Figure 7.

Figure 5 Final design modeled in Solid works

Figure 6 Crank – Slider mechanism is used to move the harvesting wheel back and forth (red arrow) to shake olive trees.

83 5 | Page

Figure 7. Head frame attached to the Bobcat 337. Harvesting head can rise up to 12 feet from ground and harvest trees up to 16 feet.

This design has been modified to achieve higher acceleration and better fruit removal by changing the shaking mechanism. The current harvesting wheels has been attached to an off-center shaft connection and has been driven by the same hydraulic motor using chain, see figure 8. We also needed to increase the number of shaking rods to increase contact area with the canopy and improves transmission of vibration energy to tree canopy. We added four more rods to each harvesting wheel as shown in figure 9.

Figure 8. Modified design using an off-center connection allowing the harvesting wheel to generate circular shaking motion.

84 6 | Page

Figure 9. Modified design without shaking wheel attached (right) and with shaking wheel and rods attached (left)

Figure 10. Wireless accelerometer sensor system contains multiple sensor modules (yellow boxes) and one data logger unit.

To measure and record vibration, we have developed and built a wireless sensor system consisting of a data logger unit and multiple sensing module. Each sensing module has a built-in 3D accelerometer, wireless module, and a battery. Data logger unit connect wirelessly to all sensing module and record their data on a flash card, see Figure 10.

Results:

85 7 | Page

These two harvesting machines were tested in an Olive orchard on Oct 1st and Nov 11th, 2018 respectively. We attached 3 accelerometer sensors to each tree, one attached to tree trunk, one to the main branch and one to the secondary smaller branch to measure how vibration energy travels through a tree. Using this sensor system, we could compare our canopy shaker harvesters to a trunk shaker harvester which was available at the experimental site. Figure 11 shows the acceleration of each sensor of these three harvesting machines. Collected data from both canopy shakers (figure 11. A and B), showed that the small diameter branches vibrate at a higher amplitude than the larger primary branches and trunk. This shows that a much smaller amount of energy goes through tree trunk and root system which could result in less damage to the tree compared to trunk shaker. Figure 11 (C) shows the similar data for the trunk shaker, it shows there is much higher vibration amplitude in trunk compared to small branches. This means the newly developed harvester machine applies most of the energy where the fruits are located and therefore is more efficent. Table 2 shows shaking frequency and maximum acceleration at small branches produced by our canopy shakers and the trunk shaker.

Modified Canopy Shaker Trunk Shaker Canopy Shaker

Frequency: Frequency: Frequency: 3.7 Hz 3.5 Hz 15.5 Hz

Max Max Max Amplitude: Amplitude: Amplitude: 100 221.5 125.5 Figure 11. Vibration amplitude from our Table 2. Shows−2 working frequency−2 and maximum −2 𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠 𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠 𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠 designed canopy shaker Vs. a Trunk shaker amplitude at small branches of these three harvesters.

86 8 | Page

Figure 12 shows the modified canopy shaker was able to deliver highest max and RMS acceleration at small branches compared to first version of canopy shaker and the trunk shaker. Our first harvesting machine was not quite successful in removing fruit due to lower shaking frequency and lower shaking amplitude, but the modified canopy shaker was able to harvest as efficient to the trunk shaker while transferring much lower vibration energy to tree trunk compared to the trunk shaker. We plan to continue working on this machine. We will make more modifications on the newly developed system and will test it again in the next harvesting season in 2019.

) ) 𝟐𝟐 𝟐𝟐 − − 𝒔𝒔 229 𝒔𝒔 73.6 221.5 𝒎𝒎 𝒎𝒎 ( ( 62.9

146.3 46.1

124.4 125.5 Acceleration

100.0 31.5 30.5 Max Acceleration RMS 26.8

16.7 48 41.6 13.7 31.1 12.5

TRUNK MAIN BRANCH SMALL BRANCH TRUNK MAIN BRANCH SMALL BRANCH

Trunk Shaker Canopy Shaker Trunk Shaker Canopy Shaker Modified Canopy Shaker Modified Canopy Shaker

Figure 12. Maximum acceleration produced by these three harvesters at each part of a tree (left). Root Mean Square (RMS) of vibration measured at each part of a tree (right).

References: Ravetti, Leandro, and Leandro Ravetti. Guide to efficient olive harvesting. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, 2008.

87 Southern Region Olive Fruit Fly Project Sponsored by: California Olive Committee, Nutrien Ag Solutions & Ag IPM Consultants

2018 Total OLFF for the Week Ending Apr.06 Apr. 13 Apr.20 Apr. 27 May.04 May. 11 May.19 May. 25 Jun.01 Jun. 08 Jun.15 Jun. 22 Jun.29 Jul. 06 TOT/YR Block MFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMF MF Woodlake set set 86 18 27 6 15 6 14 5 9 6 3 2 4 3 29 8 9 5 19 11 4 3 1 0 0 0 220 73 Ivanhoe set set 40 8 11 2 18 4 16 5 17 66401933299110010 131 45 Exeter set set 73 13 40 13 48 10 12 3 13 7 20 851833183010000 230 63 South Exeter set set 70309442944001213100112133 47 18 Tonyville set set 195 41 72 22 10 21 90 15 28 9 32 9 41 14 26 21 18 6 16 4 5 2 6 1 0 0 539 165 W. Lindsay set set 31 8 16 9 23 8 14 3 12 6 11 3 5 1 19 27 4 1 21 6 19 9 2 0 11 2 188 83 Strathmore set set 106 39 33 10 31 14 12 4 19 0 14 4 8 3 36 15 4 3 5 4 7 2 3 1 19 4 297 103 Porterville set set 32 6 14 3 11 5 9 3 12 3 3 2 12 3 33 13 9 4 4 0 1 0 9 7 1 0 150 49 Terra Bella set set 16 5 13 6 32 4 4 2 28 17 53 10 22 5 68 9 26 18 27 20 39 7 8 6 4 1 340 110 Total 586 138 229 71 197 76 175 42 147 58 146 42 97 32 230 100 79 41 109 57 77 26 31 16 39 10 2142 709 City of Visalia set set 7 4 13 1 49 9 1 1 17 7 21 7 8 1 10 2 13 4 29 11 5 5 5 2 6 1 197 55 Jul.13 Jul. 20 Jul.27 Aug. 03 Aug.10 Aug. 17 Aug.24 Aug. 31 Sep.07 Sep. 14 Sep.21 Sep. 28 Oct.05 Oct. 12 TOT/YR Block MFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMF MF Woodlake 2010422133151444215450307100 260 98 Ivanhoe 22 6 10 35261033101223173 14 1 2 1 6 2 3 1 214 73

88 Exeter 2100000001000021004420001110 242 71 South Exeter 19 384210100000000100110000021 80 29 Tonyville 8222103000400032001050102101 569 173 W. Lindsay 10 5 10 5410000000000000000100001 213 95 Strathmore 6 2 4 1 51 5 10 141202120102120102112 387 118 Porterville 2110100000210111001001210032 163 57 Terra Bella 7230001100312100103110111132 366 120 Total 78 22 39 15 68 11 22 5 7 8 15 8 5 8 14 10 8 2 23 14 30 2 11 3 19 7 13 10 2494 834 City of Visalia 35 10 11 2312121300100001120000110 256 73 Oct. 19 Oct. 26 Nov. 02 Nov. 09 Nov. 16 Nov. 23 Nov. 30 TOT/YR Block MFMFMFMFMFMFMF MF Woodlake 2 0 1 8 15 4 5 2 2 2 2 0 1 0 288 114 Ivanhoe 10 30495851250 4 2 251 94 Exeter 3 1 0 4 7 7 11 2 2 3 1 1 1 0 267 89 South Exeter 100020021000 1 0 85 31 Tonyville 0 0 2 0 8 3 8 5 11 1 2 1 15 3 615 186 W. Lindsay 202042312302 0 1 226 104 Strathmore 312031841331 1 8 408 136 Porterville 310153211400 1 0 175 67 Terra Bella 2 1 2 5 13 3 2 10 2 8 1 0 20 6 408 153 Total 26 7 9 22 66 28 47 32 23 26 14 5 44 20 2723 1013 City of Visalia 500040003030 0 1 271 74 THIS IS THE FINAL REPORT FOR THIS YEAR. THE REPORTS WILL START AGAIN NEXT APRIL. BEST WISHES FOR THE NEW YEAR. Southern Region Olive Fruit Fly Project 2018

Date 1 2 SUBTOT Block MFMF M F Nov.28 Woodlake 0 0 1 0 1 0

Nov.28 Ivanhoe 0 0 4 2 4 2

Nov.28 Exeter 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nov.28 South Exeter 1 0 0 0 1 0

Nov.28 Tonyville 2 0 13 3 15 3

Nov.28 W. Lindsay 0 0 0 1 0 1

Nov.28 Strathmore 0 0 1 8 1 8

Nov.28 Porterville 1 0 0 0 1 0

Nov.28 Terra Bella 1 0 19 6 20 6

TOTAL 43 20 Nov.28 City of Visalia 0 0 0 1 0 1

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

2-Apr 9-Apr 17-Apr 23-Apr 30-Apr 7-May 14-May 21-May 29-May 4-Jun 11-Jun 18-Jun 25-Jun TOT/YTD MFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMF MF Orland 1 Glenn County Fairgrounds 3 3 5 3 6 2 24 8 14 16 3 3 6 5 66 30 50 34 32 22 69 22 91 36 42 19 411 203 Orland 2 Road 200 & Road E 0 1 4 6 1 1 67 26 110 37 81 34 173 51 155 90 106 63 26 12 33 15 18 15 21 10 795 361 Orland 3 SE Orland N & 16 56 47 26 18 9 5 29 8 10 4 6 4 10 3 4 0 11 5 3 1 20 13 11 4 4 2 199 114 Orland 4 NE Orland Rd 12 & N 00001001204001000000311043 15 6 Orland 5 Rd 21 & M 4 0 7 1 6 2 5 0 20 8 6 4 16 10 27 13 39 15 15 3 13 17 4 0 0 0 162 73 Orland 6 Hwy 99W & Rd 18 33 15 46 17 24 6 84 32 67 24 45 22 21 14 20 9 8 3 34 24 46 18 44 35 4 5 476 224 Corning 1 Northbound I-5 Reststop 100131316283 14 4 20 9 74 31 106 24 269 79 242 74 130 43 876 272 Corning 2 Fig Lane & Houghton 127330564021 17 7 8 7 42 23 8 3 9 7 8 3 15 11 129 73 Corning 3 Barham & Sampson 00000000200000006362 25 17 27 12 25 16 91 50 Corning 4 Sac River - Kopta Rd 23023000000010000011133110 12 10 Corning 5 Viola Ave & Orchard Ave 3110001110002020 17 1 5 1 9 7 4 2 0 1 45 14 Corning 6 Dora Ave & Marguerite Ave 0000--000000 12 3 10 3 37 12 6 8 5 3 5 3 5 9 80 41 Total 103 72 96 51 56 17 218 83 236 91 155 71 272 98 312 161 390 190 242 101 502 202 458 185 251 119 3291 1441

2-Jul 9-Jul 16-Jul 23-Jul 30-Jul 6-Aug 13-Aug 20-Aug 27-Aug 4-Sep 10-Sep 17-Sep 24-Sep TOT/YTD M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F Orland 1 Glenn County Fairgrounds 23 12 10 13 431101000110019 16 4 10 4 2 4 1 471 264 Orland 2 Road 200 & Road E 25 12 770010010000000000024404 832 391 Orland 3 SE Orland N & 16 20 650110000000110200171 13 3 4 4 252 131 Orland 4 NE Orland Rd 12 & N 11441000000001010001005991 35 24 Orland 5 Rd 21 & M 0043010000000022004382 25 13 34 20 239 117 Orland 6 Hwy 99W & Rd 18 13 16 9 16 16 10 11121000002024511375 534 282 Corning 1 Northbound I-5 Reststop 142 52 136 50 34 11 10111100000010003042 1199 389 Corning 2 Fig Lane & Houghton 15 6 16 6 11 500100130001100213288 189 103 Corning 3 Barham & Sampson 33 23 18 12 1012000031002000203026 156 94 Corning 4 Sac River - Kopta Rd 01000000000000000130000130 18 13 Corning 5 Viola Ave & Orchard Ave 30651000000201000200000048 59 32 Corning 6 Dora Ave & Marguerite Ave 82421011000000001011003236 102 55 Total 283 131 219 118 70 31 6 5 3 5 2 4 6 5 4 3 8 5 20 26 28 17 64 39 82 65 4086 1895

1-Oct 8-Oct 15-Oct 23-Oct 29-Oct 5-Nov 13-Nov 19-Nov 26-Nov 3-Dec 10-Dec TOT/YTD M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F Orland 1 Glenn County Fairgrounds 3 4 8 12 161 101 302 137 153 54 129 89 - - 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 1231 666 Orland 2 Road 200 & Road E 6 2 13 13 71 48 90 71 45 30 247 176 187 201 43 45 3 3 1 0 1 0 1539 980 Orland 3 SE Orland N & 16 9 2 23 16 131 38 99 53 59 21 45 37 57 35 21 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 698 350 Orland 4 NE Orland Rd 12 & N 2 1 2 1 7 5 13 5 6 4 12 39 152 148 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 230 228 Orland 5 Rd 21 & M 32 18 35 11 152 76 158 63 38 11 160 59 79 93 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 893 451 Orland 6 Hwy 99W & Rd 18 13 11 11 10 131 68 132 93 54 44 194 101 107 78 3 0 6 4 0 0 0 1 1185 692 Corning 1 Northbound I-5 Reststop 0 2 - - 2 1 3 2 6 2 27 14 20 31 34 20 14 2 0 0 0 0 1305 463 Corning 2 Fig Lane & Houghton 10 1 10 1 56 40 32 29 26 9 191 52 75 62 14 7 3 2 0 0 0 0 606 306 Corning 3 Barham & Sampson 2 1 1 1 21 9 6 13 28 13 57 25 62 23 34 10 5 2 3 1 0 0 375 192 Corning 4 Sac River - Kopta Rd 2 2 3 1 23 14 29 20 28 21 104 55 52 50 3 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 263 182 Corning 5 Viola Ave & Orchard Ave 0 2 0 1 6 10 16 23 14 12 82 41 67 32 106 35 16 17 0 0 0 0 366 205 Corning 6 Dora Ave & Marguerite Ave 6 2 9 1 26 18 17 15 23 10 50 13 38 25 3 7 1 1 2 0 0 0 277 147 Total 85 48 115 68 787 428 897 524 480 231 1298 701 896 778 266 151 50 35 7 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 8968 4862

90 2017-2018 no cost extension reports

Canopy Management; Tree Hedging and Topping to Optimize Yield- Dr. Rich Rosecrance

Managing Alternate Bearing in Olive with PGR’s and Pruning- Dr. Carol Lovatt & Dr. Elizabeth Fitchner

Evaluation of Several Promising Additives for Reducing Acrylamide in Black Ripe Table Olives- Dr. Selina Wang

Differentiation of Olive Cultivars using DNA and NMR-based Fingerprinting Methods- Dr. Selina Wang

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 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: 2018 Anticipated Duration of Project: First year of a 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 Plant Growth Regulators (PGRs) and Pruning

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

Overview: To mitigate alternate bearing in ‘Manzanillo’ olive trees, it is necessary to increase the number of non-bearing shoots during the ON-crop year by removing inflorescences or fruit during the ON-crop year. This is due to the fact that only non-bearing shoots, which are in low number on ON-crop trees, produce a significant number of inflorescences the following spring (Fichtner and Lovatt, 2018; Fichtner et al., 2017). Return bloom is dramatically reduced on bearing shoots, the majority of shoots on ON-crop trees, due to the combined effects of the total fruit on the tree (whole tree effect of crop load) and individual fruit set on bearing shoots (localized effect of fruit) of ‘Manzanillo’ olive trees which (i) inhibit summer vegetative shoot growth and thereby reduce the number of nodes that can produce floral (inflorescence) buds the foillowing spring (Sibbett, 2000), (ii) reduce spring bud break, (iii) prevent floral gene transcription, and (iv) increase floral bud abscission (Fichtner and Lovatt, 2018; Fichtner et al., 2017). The overall goal is to even out the 2-year cumulative yield in an alternate bearing ‘Manzanillo’ orchard, which is currently distributed with ≥ 80% of the crop harvested in the ON- crop year and 20% or less harvested in the OFF-crop year to a more uniform distribution of 50% of the 2-year cumulative yield harvested in each year. Once achieved, the second objective is to maintain annual yield at 60% to 70% of the average yield for the ON-crop year in the orchard for each year of the 2-year cycle in order to increase annual and cumulative yield, maintain

99 commercially valuable fruit size and to increase income over multiple, successive cropping years. Thus far, using NAA to reduce inflorescence number or pruning to reduce fruit number on one side of the tree starting in the ON-crop year and repeating the treatments on the opposite side of the tree the following year, we have achieved 2-year cumulative yields that are distributed ~60% in the putative ON-crop year and ~40% in the following putative OFF-crop year with no significant reduction in 2-year cumulative yield.

Objectives for 2018 (Year 1): The objective of this year’s research was to test the efficacy of removing flowers or fruit on one side of an ON-crop tree one year and the other side of the tree the following year. Two approaches for crop reduction are being tested: (1) flower thinning with a foliar application of the plant growth regulator (PGR) naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA) (ALCO Olive StopTM; AMVAC Corp., already registered for use on olive) applied at full bloom at the manufacture’s suggested rate; and (2) fruit removal by pruning (mechanical hedging) one side of a second set of ON-crop ‘Manzanillo’ olive trees. (We had hope to compare the efficacy of NAA to that of a new product ACC, but Valent BioSciences was unable to provide ACC to include in the research in 2018.) By chemically thinning only half of the tree with NAA, the impact of over-thinning on yield if a heat wave occurs is reduced. In our experiment, pruning was delayed to after fruit set to enable growers to evaluate the crop set by their trees before deciding how much fruit to remove. This allows a grower to tailor the degree of pruning to accommodate years with a poor fruit set in spite of a heavy bloom. An added benefit of both treatments is that increasing the number of non-bearing shoots will 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 and PGR treatments designed to improve fruit set or size (Fichtner and Lovatt, 2018; Fichtner et al., 2017). All 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. Progress during 2018: Bloom estimates determined prior to treatment applications in 2018 clearly distinguished ON-bloom trees from OFF-bloom trees (Table 1), which produced ON and OFF yields at harvest, respectively (Table 2). ON-crop trees that were subjected to NAA application or pruning on the west side of the tree in 2017 did not flower as intensely in 2018 as we had anticipated and thus, the 2018 bloom for these trees was significantly less than ON-crop control trees and equal to that of the OFF-crop control trees. Although pruning in 2017 appeared to have a more negative effect on return bloom than the 2017 NAA treatment, return yields for these two treatments in 2018 were equal (Table 2). At bloom, we suspected that pruning at the end of June (June 26) might have been too late for the trees to fully transition from vegetative to reproductive growth. Thus, when treating the opposite side of the tree in 2018, we pruned at the end of May (28 days after full bloom). However, now that we have the yield data, it is clear that this was not the case, but instead evidence of the greater variation in results obtained with pruning compared to the use of NAA that is starting to accumulate with multiple years of data. Average bloom estimate per tree was strongly correlated with total yield (kg/tree) at harvest (r = 0.80; P < 0.0001). This result, taken together with the fact that NAA and pruned trees produced yields that were not significantly different, indicates that NAA treatment does not have a negative effect on pistil viability (i.e., does not cause pistil abortion or increase the proportion of male flowers). If it did, one would expect NAA-treated trees to have significantly lower yields than pruned trees.

100 In spring of 2018, NAA was applied to the east side of the trees at full bloom and pruning was earlier this year at 28 days after full bloom (May 30). Estimates of crop load accurately distinguished ON- versus OFF-crop trees (Table 1). Estimated crop loads for trees treated with NAA or pruned in spring 2018 were intermediate to those of ON- and OFF-crop trees and these trees produced total yields at harvest that were intermediate to ON- and OFF-crop control trees (Table 2). In contrast, estimated crop loads were significantly lower for trees treated on one side in 2017 and then the other in 2018 compared to ON-crop control trees and ON-crop trees treated on one side of the tree in 2018 only and equal to OFF-crop trees (P < 0.0001). These results were reflected in the total yields at harvest and there was a strong correlation between average crop load estimate per tree and total yield (kg/tree) at harvest (r = 0.83; P < 0.0001).

In 2017, the first NAA and pruning treatments applied to the west side of ON-crop trees reduced the yield by 32% and 33%, respectively, resulting in yields intermediate to those of ON- and OFF-crop control trees in 2017 (Table 2). However, return yields were lower than anticipated and total yield was not significantly different from that of OFF-crop control trees in 2018. Yields of NAA-treated and pruned trees were 77% and 70% lower than the yield of ON-crop control trees in 2018. The results raise two questions: (1) should more flowers and fruit be removed from ON-crop trees or (2) is it better to leave the fruit contributed by the OFF-crop side of the tree in year 2. In other words, should trees be treated on one side of the tree every other year rather than annually. In both treatments, yields were 2.8- and 2.7-fold greater than that of OFF-crop control trees in 2017 but only 1.5- and 1.8-fold greater than the OFF-crop control trees in 2018, despite yields of the OFF-crop control trees being very similar in 2017 and 2018.

In 2018, we repeated the treatments with a new set of ON-crop trees. Consistent with crop estimates, the trees treated with NAA or pruned on one side in 2018 produced yields intermediate to the ON- and OFF-crop control trees (Table 2). Compared to the ON-crop control trees yield was reduced 31% by NAA but only 18% by pruning, making NAA treatment much more consistent than pruning. NAA-treated trees produced 3.1-fold more fruit than the OFF-crop control trees, whereas the pruned trees produced 3.75-fold more fruit, raising concern that the amount of fruit removed by pruning in 2018 might be too low.

Thus far, trees treated annually have 2-year cumulative yields that are 15-20% lower than the average for the two sets of ON/OFF control trees, but the differences are not statistically different; yield varies between the two sets of ON/OFF control trees by ~ 15% for the 2 years of the research. The goal is to shift the distribution of the yields in the ON/OFF cycles of an alternate bearing ‘Manzanillo’ olive orchard from 80%: 20% in the ON- versus OFF-crop years to 50%: 50% for each year of a 2-year cycle to improve fruit size and stabilize income. Thus far, the treatments have achieved a yield distribution of 64%: 36% for flower thinning using NAA and 59%: 41% for fruit removal by pruning for the 2 years of the alternate bearing ON/OFF cycle. This successfully improved fruit size. In each year of the research, average fruit size for OFF-crop trees was extra large, whereas the average fruit size for ON-crop control trees was medium (2017) or large (2018). In each year the NAA and pruning treatments were initiated on ON-crop trees, average fruit was large for both treatments (Table 2). Another benefit from evening out alternate bearing may be a greater proportion of green fruit at harvest. In 2017, OFF- crop control trees had the largest proportion of black or partially black fruit (54%) (P < 0.0003), whereas the proportion green olives on NAA-treated (81%) and pruned trees (75%) was equal to that of ON-crop control trees (90%) (P < 0.0003). In 2018, 93% to 100% of all fruit per tree were green, with OFF-crop control trees having the least green fruit (P = 0.0012). Moreover, for ON-

101 crop trees treated with NAA or pruned annually for two years, the severity of alternate bearing has been reduced more than 20%. The alternate bearing index (ABI) for the ON/OFF control trees over the two years of the research is 0.75, whereas for NAA and pruned trees treated in both 2017 and 2018, it is 0.52. Note: ABI is calculated as (year 1 yield – year 2 yield)/(year 1 yield + year 2 yield), with yield as total kg/tree and the difference in yield between years 1 and 2 expressed as an absolute value. ABI = 0.0 means no alternate bearing; whereas ABI = 1.0 is complete alternate bearing, with crop one year and no crop the other year (Pearce and Dobersek- Urbanc, 1967).

This coming year, for trees treated in 2017 and 2018, we will continue to apply the foliar NAA treatment to reduce inflorescence number and the pruning treatment to reduce fruit number. The treatments will be on the opposite side of the trees from last year to determine if over the course of 3 years the treatments continue to equilibrate annual yield across years to reduce ABI and also to increase total annual yield and cumulative yield relative to ON/OFF control trees. In addition, we will compare the results of this strategy with a second strategy of applying the NAA or pruning treatments to one side of the tree and then the other side of the tree every other year, not annually, to compare the efficacy of this strategy to better increase yield following the ON-crop year and improve 2-year cumulative yield while evening out alternate bearing. We initiated the research for this strategy in 2018, thus the yield results of 2019 will tell us whether we need the yield of the OFF-crop side of the tree in year 2 to increase the 2-year cumulative yield and better even out yield distribution over the 2-year yield cycle.

Select References: Chao, Y.Y. 2014. Alternate Bearing in Olive (Olea europaea L.). MS Thesis. University of California, Riverside, CA.

Fichtner, E., Lovatt, C.J. 2018. Alternate bearing in olive. Acta Hortic. 1199:103-108. doi:10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1199.17

Fichtner, E.J., Y.Y. Chao, L. Ferguson, J.S. Verreynne, L. Tang and C.J. Lovatt. 2017. Repeating cycles of ON and OFF yields in alternate bearing olive, pistachio and citrus trees — Different mechanisms, common solutions. Acta Hort. (in review)

Pearce, S.C. and S.Dobersek-Urbanc. 1967. The measurements of irregularity in growth and cropping. J. Hort. Sci. 42(3):295–305.

Sibbett, S. (2000). Alternate bearing in olive trees. California Olive Oil News. 3(12),1

102 Table 1. Effect of crop load and NAA and pruning treatments on the 2018 bloom and crop load estimates. 2017y 2018 Bloomz estimate Crop load estimate

(Before 2018 treatment) (After 2018 treatment) Treatment West East Average West East Average OFF-crop control ON-crop control 2.7 ax 2.6 a 2.7 a 2.7 a 2.5 a 2.6 a OFF-crop ON crop - NAA east 2.2 a 2.3 a 2.3 a 2.4 a 1.6 b 2.0 b (ON crop) side of tree @ full bloom OFF-crop ON crop - Pruned east 2.6 a 2.6 a 2.6 a 2.4 a 2.3 a 2.4 ab (on-crop) side of tree

@ 28 days after full bloom (May 30) ON-crop control OFF-crop control 0.7 bc 0.4 b 0.6 b 0.9 c 0.7 c 0.8 c 103 ON crop - NAA west OFF crop - NAA east 1.1 b 0.9 b 1.0 b 1.6 b 0.9 c 1.3 c side of tree @ full (OFF crop) side of (on crop) bloom tree @ full bloom ON crop - Pruned west OFF crop - Pruned east 0.6 c 0.9 b 0.8 b 0.8 c 0.9 c 0.9 c (on crop) side of (OFF crop) side of

tree @ end of June tree @ 28 days after (June 28) full bloom (May 30) P-value < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 z Bloom and crop load was evaluated on the following scale: 0, no inflorescence or no crop; 1, low floral intensity or low crop load; 2, medium floral intensity or medium crop load; and 3, high floral intensity or heavy crop load crop . y All trees were topped in July 7, 2017 and May 30, 2018 x Mean values within a vertical column followed by different letters are significantly different at the specified P level by Fisher’s Protected LSD test. Table 2. Effect of crop load and NAA and pruning treatments on 2017 and 2018 yield and average fruit size and 2-year cumulative yield. 2017z 2018 2017 2018 2-yr cumulative yield Treatment Yield Fruit size Yield Fruit size (kg/tree) (g/fruit) (kg/tree) (g/fruit) (kg/tree) Off-crop control On-crop control 25.3 c y 5.5 a 121.5 a 4.4 d 146.9 a Off-crop On crop - NAA east 20.3 c 5.6 a 83.6 b 4.9 c 103.8 a side of tree @ full bloom Off-crop On crop - Pruned east 15.4 c 5.5 a 100.5 ab 4.3 d 115.9 a side of tree @ 28 days after full bloom (May 30)

104 On-crop control Off-crop control 103.9 a 4.1 c 26.8 c 6.1 a 130.7 a On crop - NAA west NAA east (off crop) 71.3 b 4.9 b 39.6 c 5.5 b 110.9 a side of tree @ full side of tree @ full bloom bloom On crop - Pruned west Pruned east (off crop) 69.3 b 4.7 b 47.5 c 5.6 ab 116.9 a side of tree @ end side @ 28 days after of June (June 26) full bloom (May 30) P-value < 0.0001 <0.0001 < 0.0001 <0.0001 0.1182 z All trees were topped in July 7, 2017 and May 30, 2018. y Mean values within a vertical column followed by different letters are significantly different at the specified P level by Fisher’s Protected LSD test.

Evaluation of Several Promising Additives for Reducing Acrylamide in Black Ripe Table Olives

Objective: To evaluate whether the addition of amino acid or phenolic additives prior to sterilization can reduce acrylamide content in black ripe table olives.

Progress: The first step in the project was developing a reliable, accurate method for measuring acrylamide in black ripe olives. We developed a simple extraction method for acrylamide with liquid chromatography- UV detection. However, the processors raised concerns about the consistency of data between our liquid chromatography (LC) method and the gas chromatography (GC) method which was being used by a private lab. To investigate this discrepancy, we compared multiple methods for acrylamide analysis including:

• LC-UV detection • LC-mass spectrometry • GC-mass spectrometry (which includes sample derivatization) • LC-UV detection with sample derivatization.

The instrument detection limits for brominated acrylamide were much higher than non-brominated acrylamide (Table 1). Brominated samples had to be concentrated before analysis to achieve a method detection limit comparable with non-brominated samples. LC-MS/MS had the greatest sensitivity overall.

To assess method accuracy and precision, we performed spike recovery experiments, where a known amount of acrylamide was added to the olive pulp before extraction. Samples were fortified in duplicate with 200 µg/kg and 600 µg/kg of acrylamide. Results are shown in Table 2. According to the AOAC, acceptable recovery for analytes in this concentration range is between 80-110%, and the acceptable limit for relative standard deviation (RSD) is below 15%. Recoveries at the low level could not be calculated for the LC-UV methods since acrylamide was not quantifiable in the unfortified samples. All other methods had acceptable recoveries at both the low and high level with the exception of the high spike in GC-MS. The GC-MS conditions were still being optimized during these trials and we suspect that caused an error in the quantification, which would be eliminated if the trial was repeated. All samples were below the acceptable limit for RSD, with LC-MS/MS having the lowest variability.

Instrumental limit (µg/mL) Method limit (µg/kg) LC-UV 0.025 71 LC-MS/MS 0.01 28 LC-UV with derivatization 0.20 76 GC-MS with derivatization 0.75 62 Table 1. Limits of quantification for each detector and method

105 Low spike (200 µg/kg) High spike (600 µg/kg) Recovery Relative Standard Recovery Relative Standard Deviation Deviation LC-UV na3 14% 95% 5% LC-MS/MS 110% 1% 110% 0.2% LC-UV with derivatization na 6% 90% 3% GC-MS with derivatization 101% 2% 156% 1% Table 2. Recoveries and relative standard deviations of acrylamide added at two different spike levels According to the AOAC, acceptable recovery range is 80-110% and acceptable relative standard deviation is ≤ 15%. 1na (not applicable) = The unfortified sample was below the quantification limit and recovery could not be calculated.

We then analyzed six different commercial black ripe samples using all four of the developed methods in order to assess the consistency of data. Although there was some variability between methods, values were generally within the same range and the trends between samples were consistent (Figure 1). LC- MS/MS had the lowest standard deviation, followed by GC-MS.

800 700 600

500 400 300

200 100 Concentration (µg/kg) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sample Number HPLC-UV HPLC-MS/MS HPLC-UV with Br GC-MS

Based the results, LC-MS/MS was identified as the best method in terms of precision, sensitivity, selectivity and ease. However, we are in the process of conducting a more in-depth comparison and validation of these different methods. The results will be published, and can hopefully be used as a starting point for developing a standard analytical method for the table olive industry.

106 Future work:

In previous trials in our lab, certain additives like cysteine and n-acetyl cysteine have shown great promise in reducing acrylamide in vivo. Other published studies have also shown that proline, sarcosine and arginine inhibited acrylamide formation in an olive model system. With the help of processors, we plan to test the effectiveness of these amino acids and other additives at the industrial scale. Different concentrations of additives will be tested in order to assess acrylamide reduction, as well as changes in the quality or sensory profile of the olives.

107 Differentiation of olive cultivars using DNA and NMR-based fingerprinting methods

Objective:

To use DNA and NMR-based fingerprinting methods and fatty acid profiles (FAP) for differentiating cultivars of processed olives. Color-coded loading plots will be generated from supervised multivariate statistical analysis methods to indicate the significance of specific metabolites in different cultivars and regions.

Materials:

Canned olives of known cultivars were collected from processors. Sample information is listed in the table below:

Cultivar Origin Quantity Manzanilla Domestic 1 gallon-sized can; 17 retail-sized cans Mexico 1 gallon-sized can Spain 1 retail-sized can Manzanilla Fina Domestic 9 retail-sized cans Sevillano Domestic 1 gallon-sized can, 10 retail-sized cans Gordal Spain 5 retail-sized cans Hojiblanca Spain 3 retail-sized cans Barouni Domestic 1 gallon-sized can Mission Domestic 1 gallon-sized can Obliza Mexico 1 gallon-sized can Chalkidiki Greece 1 retail-sized can

Individual olives within the same can will be treated as biological replicates, as they very likely originated from different trees.

Progress:

DNA-based differentiation. A method for extracting DNA from processed California-style olives is being developed. Extraction of DNA from olive fruit is a novel and difficult task due to the high content of lipids and secondary metabolites like phenolic compounds. Commercial kits were first tried, but extraction was unsuccessful. Instead, we are currently experimenting with a cetyl trimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) extraction method. Small amounts of DNA were recovered upon initial trials, but yield can be greatly improved through method optimization. The following techniques are being assessed:

• Freezing and crushing fruit into fine powder under liquid nitrogen • Utilizing zirconimum beads and a tissue lyser during sample homogenization • Removing lipids using a phenol:chloroform wash • Removing polysaccharides using a salt:chloroform wash

108 NMR fingerprinting: Method development is being performed in collaboration with Dr. Emmanuel Hatzakis at the Ohio State University (OSU). Canned olives of two different cultivars were frozen over dry ice and crushed into a powder using a mortar and pestle. Samples were shipped to Dr. Hatzakis’ lab for trials, where they are currently assessing whether polar or nonpolar compounds will be more effective for differentiating the cultivars. Dr. Hatzakis is also comparing different NMR spectroscopy methods including liquid 1H NMR and 13C NMR, and solid-state High Resolution-Magic Angle Spinning (HR-MAS) NMR. Conditions that provide the most robust and sensitive differentiation will be optimized.

Future work:

DNA-based differentiation: Through a literature search, we will identify specific markers (biallelic single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs) that vary between olive cultivars. DNA primer sequences that target these SNPs will be designed. We will then extract DNA from canned olives of different cultivars/origins using the previously-developed method. We will test the performance of these SNPs on the extracted DNA to determine whether cultivars can be effectively differentiated. Ultimately, we aim to produce a 48-SNP panel that can be used as a tool to reliably identify cultivar for the industry.

NMR fingerprinting: We plan to use the previously-optimized method to analyze at least 30 olives from each cultivar. Data pre-processing will be performed using AMIX software and a model for differentiating cultivars will be constructed using partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA). Thirty olives of various known cultivars will then be analyzed in order to test the prediction ability of our model.

Fatty acid profiles: The fatty acid profiles of 30 olives from each cultivar will be determined using gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC-FID) following the IOC official method (COI/T.20/Doc. no. 24-2001). As with NMR analyses, PLS-DA will be used construct a model to differentiate between cultivars and the FAP of 30 olives of various known cultivars will be used to test the prediction ability of the model.

109 2018-2019 future Research summary

Canopy management, tree hedging and topping to optimize yield- Dr. Rich Rosecrance Managing Alternate Bearing in Olive with PGRs and Pruning- Dr. Carol Lovatt & Dr. Elizabeth Fichtner Southern San Joaquin Valley Olive Fruit Fly Monitoring Project- Dr. Jim Stewart Sacramento Valley Olive Fruit Fly Monitoring Project Epidemiology and Management of Olive Knot caused by Pseudomonas Sacastanoi pv. Savastanoi- J.E. Adaskaveg

Control of Overwintering Olive Fruit Fly using Insect Pathogenic Fungi- J.E. Adaskaveg

Evaluation of New Chemistries to Control Olive Fruit Fly- Debra Keenan

110 marketing

111

2018 Program Review

In 2018, the California Olive Committee continued to build upon the 2017 marketing strategy of the re-branded logo and the message that California ripe olive growers are our heart and soul. By continuing the use of enhanced marketing tactics and generating new assets and content, the California Olive Committee was able to generate over 630 million impressions across all social channels, the website, retail advertising and partnerships. This was an increase of 110 million impressions from the 2017 marketing campaign. This increase in impressions was due to our continued national media partnership with “Simply Recipes," one of the nation’s top food bloggers; increased engagement on our social channels and platforms, with emphasis on Instagram and Pinterest content; influencer activation; digital retail advertising outreach, and national media coverage. This year's increased efforts have led to positive feedback from the industry and have successfully shared the story of California ripe olives.

113 ASSET DEVELOPMENT

In 2018, we continued to make updates to our multi-media campaign graphic suite, one of the main portions of our re-branding efforts from 2017. Two grower families, the Benson's and the Henderson's, were selected to create video montages of California’s rich history with olive growers and their families. Each of the families were visited at their family farms where they were able to share their families experiences in growing California ripe olives along with personal family recipes that highlight the use of California ripe olives.

114 These videos not only increase grower involvement, but they allow consumers and other companies to connect with California ripe olive growers and the truly exceptional product that each family works hard to produce.

115 With the 120th anniversary of Freida Ehmann buying her California olive orchard, the California Olive Committee Mini-Documentary: “California Ripe Olives: Deep Roots, Bright Future” was created to celebrate this moment in history and to honor "the Mother of the Ripe Olive Industry." The mini- documentary went through California’s rich story of the California ripe olive from the beginning with Freida Ehmann to highlighting our current growers.

This documentary was distributed in the fall through PBS stations with access to over 5 million viewers. Additionally, the mini-documentary was promoted across all of the COC's social media channels, partnerships, and retail trade advertising. This video, along with all the grower videos, are available for viewing on our website, Calolive.org.

116 Global Content Development Due to increased efforts in establishing export markets for California ripe olives, the COC developed 14 new recipes, photos, and toolkits for use in both domestic and international markets, specifically in Asia. The COC worked closely with international market representatives and a recipe innovator for cultural appropriateness. This content not only found great success in international markets, but it also has great success in the domestic market due to an increase in international food consumption.

117 National Media Partner

= SIMPLY AMAZING

The COC chose to continue to work with Elise Bauer, California native and founder of Simply Recipes, because of the special relationship and support that the COC has developed with her over the last two years. Elise started Simply Recipes as a way to track the recipes she was learning to cook from her parents’ home in Carmichael, CA. Elise's company, Simply Recipes began in her parent’s kitchen and has sincegrown to reach millions of site viewers every month. With Simply Recipes being the #1 site for women, ages 25-49, and her direct influence from her own family’s kitchen, Elise is a true reflection of the message that the COC is portraying in our continued campaign, “Ripe Olives Grown in California, Enjoyed by Families Everywhere.”

118 Due to the partnership with Simply Recipes, the content and material generated by Simply Recipes continued to be the #1 of overall site traffic to the Calolive.org website. The COC was able to gain the following:

New Content and Recipes Avocado Toast with California Ripe Olives

Baked Brie with California Ripe Olive Tapenade

California Ripe Olives Rosemary Steak Skewers

119 Super Bowl/Game Day Site Takeover

The COC hosted a Super Bowl/Game Day site takeover in partnership with Simply Recipes. This takeover was similar to the takeover done in conjunction with Simply Recipes in 2017 for Thanksgiving. With the Super Bowl being the 2nd leading food "holiday" in the US, the COC decided it would be a good driver of media content and social media traffic. The COC was able to implement a custom homepage skin and five game day banner assets on the Simply Recipes website.

The takeover was able to drive a significant amount of traffic and resulted in over 6.3 million impressions!

120 Simply Recipes & California Ripe Olives "Summer Potluck" Recipe Photo Contest

In 2018, the COC and Simply Recipes held the first "Summer Potluck" recipe contest. The contest was promoted via Instagram, where it generated a significant amount content for our social media platforms and also helped launch our Instagram channel.

We engaged users to submit an original photo of their favorite summer dish featuring California ripe olives on Instagram using the hashtag #CalRipeOlivesContest. Six weekly winners were chosen to win a $100 VISA Gift Card, and Elise Bauer chose a grand prize$1,000 VISA gift card winner at the conclusion of the contest. The contest was promoted on the Simply Recipes homepage, and across the site, on social media platforms (mainly Instagram), and with an email newsletter blast.

121 The contest was very well received by the Simply Recipes audience, and the COC was pleased with the pool of entries submitted. Overall, there were 315 total entries and 2.1 million impressions!

The winner was picked by Elise Bauer. She selected a Fiery Peach and Olive Pizza with Aged Gouda submitted by @veronicacallag.

When I saw Veronica's photo for Fiery Peach and Olive Pizza with Aged Gouda, I wanted to stop everything, reach into the screen and pull out a piece to eat! I love the contrast of the colorful peaches with the jet black olives, cheesy pizza crust, and basil leaves on the side. The flour dusted pizza wheel and the cut peaches show that this is a pizza made at home, about to be devoured, giving the photo a storytelling element. Well done! - Elise Bauer, Simply Recipes Founder

122 Simply Recipes & International Association of Culinary Professionals Conference (IACP) In 2018, we had the ability to integrate with our national media partner, Elise Bauer from Simply Recipes with our showcase at the International Association of Culinary Professionals Conference and Celebrity Page filming segement in NYC.

The IACP is a major culinary conference attracting print, radio, television, and social media influencers. At the conference, the COC was able to hold an hour long cooking demonstration with with Jorge Inestroza, a California ripe olive grower, and Elise Bauer where the COC was able to highlight some unique recipes that highlight California ripe olives. Additionally, the COC was able to participate in the influencer retreat, the expo table at Saturday lunch, and the New York City Chef showcase sponsorship. Lastly, the COC participated in editor meetings with top national publications.

123 Simply Recipes & International Association of Culinary Professionals Conference (IACP)

While in New York City for IACP, Elise Bauer was featured in a TV segment on the nationally-syndicated show, Celebrity Page. In the 90 second video, Elise showed viewers how to incorporate California ripe olives into springtime salads. The segment aired on March 29, 2018 in 200 markets around the country, reaching a total audience of more than three million viewers!

124 BLOGGER/INFLUENCER MEDIA ENGAGEMENT

California Ripe Olive Grove Tour In the fall of 2018, the COC hosted a Grove Tour Event for food bloggers and influencers from across the nation. Attendees from the 2017 Influencer Event were interested in learning more about the ripe olive industry, and they even expressed interest in visiting the olive groves. This feedback caused the original Influencer Event to morph into the Grove Tour. This year's Grove Tour was a great way to engage with influencers and bloggers through our custom content generation experiences featuring growers and members of the industry.

The COC invited seven influencers from across the nation to engage in the California ripe olive experience. Each of these influencers were invited because of their specific interest in California Agriculture and California ripe olives. Additionally, they were selected because of their own unique stories that coincides with the California ripe olive message. One of the influencers was the COC's national media partner, Simply Recipes.

125 Each of the seven influencers were able to engage in the California ripe olive experience through the following activities:

An orchard tour from Vincent Ricchiuti of Ricchiuti Farms; A California ripe olives tasting; A panel Q&A from growers and industry members; A hands-on California ripe olives content creation activity; and A custom California ripe olives dinner.

126 The feedback received from attendees was positive, and many reported that they most enjoyed learning about how California ripe olives were grown and processed. They especially loved being able to walk through the olive orchard and truly see where California ripe olives come from and the work and care that goes into growing them. Each influencer was able to utilize live content while in the groves through the use of Instagram and Facebook stories live streaming. They were able to answer questions from their followers about CA ripe olives in real time by referencing answers from growers or handlers.

127 After the event was over, each influencer was asked to create a unique dish that incorporated California ripe olives. These recipes are now accessible on the influencers websites along with Calolive.org. This event not only allowed California ripe olives to gain exposure on the day of the event, but it continued after due to new recipe content creation, blog posts, and social media posts. The Grove Tour generated 102 new recipes, photos, and online content reaching 9.2 million impressions!

128 DIGITAL AND SOCIAL CONTENT

By continuing the momentum built around the 2017 social activation, the COC was able to grow their social media presence significantly. By investing in promoted posts, the COC reached a significantly larger audience. Due to our grower videos being the top performing content, the COC continued to feature them in 2018. The COC also launched its new social platform on Instagram. With 700 million active users and more than half being women, Instagram is a key platform for food and recipe sharing.

By using Instagram along with continued use of Pinterest and Facebook, the COC was able to increase its reach by 992K social impressions!

129 Continued Website Maintenance The COC completed a design refresh of their website in 2017 and continued maintenance and improvements throughout 2018. Newly developed recipes in 2018 were featured along with continued updates of older recipes. The website is not only the backbone of content sharing with consumers and retailers, but it is also a valuable tool in providing information to the industry.

130 The Industry section of the website for growers and handlers continued to grow with an update to the research section making it easily accessible and user friendly. Every research report is sorted by topic, year, and report title. This allows members to find past research on industry topics with more ease. Research will continually be updated each year to include new research reports.

131 RETAIL TRADE ADVERTISING

In addition to consumer focused activities, the COC has continually worked on integrating grower content and messaging into a year-long retail advertising plan. This year, the COC participated in over 34 total ad insertions including in-book print advertisements, e-newsletters, website ads, dynamic web content, and social media ads.

By utilizing an increased number of insertions, the year-over-year impressions generated for the very comparable spend by integrating digital placements and capitalizing on value ads.

132 INDUSTRY COMMUNICATIONS

To ensure that members of industry are kept up to date on recent marketing efforts and industry events, the COC sent out monthly and mid-year e-newsletters in 2018. The monthly newsletters included information regarding the progress of marketing plan efforts, and the mid-year newsletter include a more in-depth summary of COC activities. It is important to the COC that the industry continually be aware of ongoing marketing efforts and activities, which is what these newsletters were designed to accomplish.

133 2018 TOTAL IMPRESSIONS

Simply Recipes 16,173,587

Influencer Activation 1,950,465

Media Engagement 590,557,509

Earned Media 65,578

NYC Activation 18,190,209

Retail Promotion 2,779,843

Social Media 992,230

TOTAL 630,709,421

134 2019 Program Outline

Due to the success of the 2018 marketing programs, the industry expressed that they would like the COC to continually build upon that success in 2019. The COC's marketing goal for 2019 is to continue the message that California ripe olives are built upon family values and traditions by continuing the Simply Recipes partnership, expanding our industry communication, and leveraging the California ripe olives logo and the theme, "Grown in California-Enjoyed by Families Everywhere." With increased success in our overall impressions and consumer and retail feedback, the COC decided to proceed with this message into the 2019 year. Grower based content is the most successful driver of overall engagement, so we will proceed to utilize this content. The 2019 program will include five main aspects: California Ripe Olives Partnership with Simply Recipes Everything Food Conference Social Media Integration Industry Communications Website Maintenance

135 NATIONAL MEDIA PARTNER

In 2018, the Simply Recipes Partnership achieved over 16 million impressions!

Simply Recipes was founded by California Native, Elise Bauer. Simply Recipes begun by Elise documenting her learning family recipes in her parents kitchen. Due to her influence from her family's kitchen and generations of family recipes, we feel her story is a direct reflection of the message we are portraying in our campaign, "Ripe Olives Grown in California-Enjoyed by Families Everywhere." In order to maximize our partnership, the COC will be partnering with Simply Recipes on 3 seasonal "pulse point" packages. Each "pulse point" package will include a Simply Recipes site takeover, a full page feature in Simply Recipes blog, and California ripe olives social media integration. The season "pulse point" packages are: California Ripe Olives & the Big Game! California Ripe Olives & July 4th Fun!

California Ripe Olives & Thanksgiving

136 Program Enhancement

In 2019, California ripe olives will be taking a trip to the Wasatch Front in Layton, UT for the Everything Food Conference. The Everything Food Conference is the largest, and most anticipated conference for food online content creators, bloggers, and influencers. This event will allow for California ripe olives to educate and network with the nations most prestigious food bloggers and influencers.

While at Everything Food Conference, California ripe olives will be maximizing its exposure and education by:

Debuting the Instagram-worthy California ripe olive lounge where influencers and bloggers will be able to sample California ripe olive recipes and network with industry representatives. Participating in a Speed Networking event with influencers and educating them on California ripe olives. The goal is to connect attendees to California ripe olives and our message. The meetings are brief and focused. Hosting an influencer dinner with an exclusive menu featuring California ripe olives in every dish. The influencers in attendance will be hand picked based on similar values and connections with California ripe olives. The menu will be curated by a 5 star chef and the COC team in order to highlight California ripe olives in every dish.

137 Social Media Integration

In 2019, our social media presence grew extensively as we added an additional social platform, Instagram, to our California ripe olive social media strategy. With over 992K impressions from social media, the COC hopes to continue with the momentum that has been building on our social media sites during the past several years. Due to our grower content performing well, this year's social content will focus greatly on our growers and their families. The COC plans on taking current grower videos and adapting them into mini videos customized for social media and consumer based campaigns. In addition to a grower based content highlight, the COC is going to focus on the following areas of content:

- Simply Recipes "Pulse Point" Content in 3 Key Food Seasons

- Use and Refresh of Existing CA Ripe Olive Assets and Content

- Website Management and Continual Upgrades and Refresh

- Continued Integration of Grower Content- Including Development of "Mini Videos"

138 Industry Communications

As our 2019 marketing plans develop, we will continue to keep the industry up- to-date through the distribution of our monthly grower e-newsletter and mid-year industry update. As in 2018, the newsletters will feature the COC's most recent marketing efforts to keep the industry informed of all activities. In addition, the newsletters will update growers and the industry on any changes or updates to the industry section of the website. This will enable the industry to have full knowledge of resources available to them online at Calolive.org.

139 ca grown partnership

California Grown (also known as the Buy California Marketing Agreement), is a joint effort of agricultural industry groups representing the products of California’s farms, ranches, forests, and fisheries. Working as an advisory board to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, CA Grown 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 lifestyle. California 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. At PMA 2018, the COC was able to host a “California Mary” bar within the California Grown booth space. This, along with our grower highlight videos, which were displayed on the booth’s flat screen televisions, served as a great tool to share the story of California ripe olives to industry members from across the globe.

140 exports

141

U.S. AG. EXPORT DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUMMARY

In July of 2018, on behalf of the California Olive Committee, representatives from Bryant Christie, Inc. attended the annual United States Agricultural Export Development Council (USAEDC) Attaché seminar in Arlington, VA. At the conference, the COC was represented in meetings with the Agricultural Trade Office (ATO) representatives from Japan, Canada, India, Mexico, Southeast Asia, and China. These meetings were conducted in a speed consultation format which created the opportunity for many productive discussions to occur in a single location. The COC attends this conference every year and plans to be represented in July 2019 as well. In addition to the July USAEDC Attaché seminar, the COC also attended the annual USAEDC conference held in Baltimore, MD in November 2018. This conference differs from the July event in that there are no speed consultations, but rather presentations from numerous U.S. Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service representatives, including: Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Ag. Affairs, Ted McKinney; Chief Ag. Negotiator for the U.S. Trade Representative, Greg Doud; USDA FAS Administrator, Ken Isley; and USDA FAS Deputy Administrator for the Office of Trade Programs, Mark Slupek. The COC had an opportunity to meet with many of these influential players, and will continue to remain an active participant in these annual USAEDC events as we continue to establish our reputation as a new cooperator.

143 USAEDC Notes – July 12, 2018

Board of Directors Meeting

• If Farm Bill approval is delayed, carryover will be utilized to fund activities. USDA lawyers have stated that FMD can be carried over as well since the program is funded as part of the Farm Bill, but there was some concern from the USAEDC board whether this legal interpretation was accurate. It will be pursued further by USAEDC. • Administration is prioritizing trade missions – 6 this year versus 3 last year. USDA expects to continue prioritizing trade missions in future years as well. • Section 108 funding (~$9 million) is available. This funding comes from a balance USDA has had since 2003 in unconvertible Tunisian dinars. Updated funding details have not yet been shared by USDA, but discussions with marketing specialists suggest that activities may now be conducted outside Tunisian for activities that can be covered by FMD funding. • There is confusion about Section 508 Compliance as it pertains to Cooperator websites – the USAEDC Rules Committee is seeking clarification with the Civil Rights Office; some Cooperators mentioned having difficulties with recent Civil Rights audits (exit interviews did not fully cover findings in their final reports). • Annie Durbin is retiring after the November meeting but will assist on an as-needed basis with the transition to the new agency; there are two final candidates (agencies/individuals) being considered as the next USAEDC Executive Director. • The Citrus Research Commission was approved as an Associate Member.

Ken Isley, FAS Administrator FAS Update

• 70 out of 93 FAS posts were represented at the conference. • He wants to emphasize FAS’ enterprise value, which he considers to be export sales.

James Christie, Bryant Christie Inc. President /Greg Doud, Ambassador/Chief Ag Negotiator USTR Competitors’ FTA Advantages and U.S. Plan to Address Them

• There was an emphasis on the need for the U.S. to develop a strong offense on the trade front – our competitors have more FTAs with more countries than we do. • Ambassador Doud indicated that the Philippines is being targeted for an FTA. • Other regions on the radar include Africa, the UK, India, and Saudi Arabia. o India was singled out as a market with huge potential moving forward. o Regarding Africa, Ambassador Doud highlighted Kenya, Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire. • On NAFTA, negotiations with Mexico are in good shape but challenges remain with Canada. • With respect to a question on plans to withdraw from the WTO, Ambassador Doud called it “Fake News.” • Ambassador Doud expressed concerns over Japan and whether the U.S. will be able to negotiate a bilateral trade agreement with them in place of the TPP.

144 Ted McKinney, Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Ag Affairs Plans for TFAA

• Under Secretary McKinney said that given the current trade situation, there may be a need for ag aid for a time. o The uncertainty makes planning for the future difficult • An upside for the industry: the president likes ag and supports it. • Going after new markets will help, but probably won’t replace what we’re losing in China and other big trading partners. o McKinney highlighted the importance of Japan, “We can’t pivot to Japan fast enough.” o India will also be an important market. Grace Harter, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Privacy Shield: What U.S. Companies Need to Know

• Harter gave a general talk on GDPR and highlighted resources to help U.S. companies ensure they are complying with EU regulations. • GDPR is the primary law regulating how companies protect EU citizens’ personal data, written to ensure all EU members’ data security laws are uniform. Any company, whether it is in the EU or not, is subject to this regulation when doing business with the EU. U.S. and EU data protection laws differ, and it is important that companies doing business in the EU have a system in place to make sure they are complying with these laws. o The U.S. Department of Commerce developed Privacy Shield (https://www.privacyshield.gov/welcome) to help American companies navigate the new EU laws and to make sure they are in compliance. This is a voluntary service. o To join, U.S. companies are required to self-certify to the Department of Commerce and publicly commit to comply with the framework’s requirements. o Prior to Privacy Shield, the Department of Commerce had a similar system, Safe Harbor, in place. Companies that had been using Safe Harbor will still need to update their privacy policy before self-certifying to Privacy Shield. • Companies with questions are encouraged to contact the U.S. Department of Commerce. o [email protected], 202-482-4748 Stan Phillips, Minister Counselor, United Kingdom Gallup Findings and Brexit Planning 2020

• There is a misperception in the UK that U.S. ag products have too many food additives and artificial ingredients, and there is a general mistrust of the USDA • Other top concerns for UK consumers: environmental issues, treatment of animals and workers, price, food additives/coloring, and genetically modified • One area of strength for the U.S. to highlight is its image as an affordable option. • Moving forward it will be important to focus on U.S. brand management via public relations. o Phillips emphasized his focus on getting positive stories of U.S. ag into British media outlets.

145 • Regarding Brexit, Phillips highlighted the need to maintain continuity throughout the Brexit process.

Breakout Sessions:

The Growing Importance of USA Branding Michael Conlon, Ag Counselor, Colombia Evan Mangino, Attaché, Canada Chanda Berk, ATO Brazil

• This session covered three ongoing initiatives that promote and market U.S. food and agriculture: 1) the TasteU.S. GBI in Canada, 2) the US Food Experience in Brazil, and 3) the SaborUSA GBI in Colombia. • TasteU.S. o Started in English-speaking Canada but is now shifting its focus to include French speaking Canada. o Focus is on in-store demos (retail) and menu promotions. • US Food Experience o Goal is to establish interest in U.S. food culture – address perception of U.S. food as being only burgers and fast food. o Introduce Brazilian bloggers/chefs to U.S. food region-by-region. o Use hashtag #usfoodexperience • SaborUSA o Online presence for U.S. ag – website and social media. o Emphasis on videos and television. o Ultimately they want to expand the SaborUSA brand across other Latin American markets. • The key message was that by utilizing the “U.S.” umbrella, Cooperators can leverage that recognition and those platforms to enhance and bring more visibility to their own events (ex: if doing some event in Colombia, let the ATO know so they can promote across their channels).

FAS Thrive Ken Isley, Administrator, FAS Michelle Moore, Acting Director, FAS Enterprise Transformation Office James Gartner, FAS Enterprise Transformation Office Ron Hagen, FAS Enterprise Transformation Office Roger Mireles, FAS Enterprise Transformation Office

• FAS is implementing an end-to-end agency transformation which it is calling FAS Thrive. • FAS worked with Deloitte to form a mission assessment report in 2017, which was based on FAS’ existing governing legislation and over 100 interviews with stakeholders. o FAS’ subsequent transition began earlier this year. • This is being led by: U/S Ted McKinney, TFAA Trade Counsel; Jason Hafemeister, FAS Thrive Team; Deputy Administrators.

146 • Reasons for transformation: there were areas that needed improvement, including strategic planning, a need to align missions and resources, inefficiencies that could be eliminated, better customer service, and a need for more collaboration. • FAS is focusing on end-to-end comprehensive transformations, with five work streams: “who we are” (strategic planning), “how we operate” (human capital action teams, operational action teams, organizational assessment), and “how we change” (change management). • Questions/Feedback can be sent to [email protected]

147 U.S. Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA)

This new free trade agreement, which will replace NAFTA, is heavily focused on aspects of trade that affect the automotive industry. In terms of agriculture, it focuses mostly on the trade of dairy products from the U.S. to Canada, but is shown to be in favor of the U.S. and has been estimated to provide about a $70 million value to the U.S. dairy industry. With regard to other commodities, including olives, some additional factors that benefit all three countries include: Added modern language to enhance information exchange and cooperation in relation to Ag. biotechnology trade-issues; science-based sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures will be used to facilitate trade; an agreement on grading standards and services; and a commitment from the U.S., Mexico, and Canada to provide notification of any issues with SPS inspection issues within 5 days, rather than 7 days as the Trans-Pacific-Partnership called for.

On November 30, 2018, during the G-20 Summit, President Trump, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and now former Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto officially signed the USMCA. Although it has been signed by the three leaders, this agreement must now make its way through Congress for approval. There have been a number of House and Senate Democrats, along with several Republicans, who have voiced their opposition for the deal, and it remains unclear whether it will receive the official stamp of approval in the new Congress. The COC will continue to remain informed and keep industry members updated on the status of this important trade agreement and its potential effects on the industry.

148 USDA-FAS Funding Programs SUMMARY

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. organizations 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 COC currently utilizes MAP funding to conduct activities in Japan and Canada.

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. The COC has used EMP funding in previous years to conduct market assessment studies in both India and China.

In August of 2018, the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service announced $12 billion of immediate funding availability to assist farmers impacted by recent tariff retaliations. The Agricultural Trade Promotion Program (ATPP) allocated $200 million in funding to develop foreign markets for U.S. agriculture. The ATPP program will help U.S. agricultural exporters develop new markets and will help mitigate the adverse effects of other countries’ tariff and non-tariff barriers. The ATPP provides cost-share assistance to eligible U.S. organizations for activities such as consumer advertising, public relations, point-of-sale demonstrations, participation in trade fairs and exhibits, market research, and technical assistance. The ATPP is available to all sectors of U.S. agriculture, including fish and forest product producers, mainly through partnerships with non-profit national and regional organizations. FAS administers the ATPP under authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act. The COC applied for and received ATPP funding to conduct a market assessment in the U.K. and implement in-store demos and promotions in Southeast Asia.

149 Export Summaries Japan

In 2018, the COC’s strategy in Japan was to continue building upon the program successes from the previous two years. The COC has again applied for and received Market Access Program (MAP) funding to conduct various activities including: establishing a presence at the Japan Supermarket Trade Show and Seminar; conducting food-service and retail promotions; and initiating advertising and digital media. In order to facilitate the 2018 program activities, the COC again contracted the services of Yamano and Associates and Bryant Christie, Inc. for additional in-country support. Below is a summary of the COC’s current strategy and future intentions in working to establish the Japanese market for California ripe olives. Market conditions in Japan, such as strong consumer demand for high-quality, healthy products, bode well for increased sales of California ripe olives going forward. California ripe olives possess a multitude of characteristics that are trending with Japanese consumers, such as “beauty benefits,” nutritional content, good flavor, and convenient packaging. In working to promote these qualities to Japanese imports and consumers, as well as by distinguishing California ripe olives from the competition, the COC is optimistic for increased exports in Japan. The COC will continue to focus on differentiating California ripe olives from the competition by emphasizing their unique attributes to consumers. The COC will also be cognitive of key factors that Japanese importers consider when sourcing olives such as price, taste, quality, health, safety, and production processes. Through an in-market representative, as well as the COC’s Japanese trade website, the COC continues to develop working relationships with the Japanese imports, and aims to further expand overall California ripe olive distribution in Japan. As California ripe olives gradually become more prevalent throughout Japanese retail, retail promotions will become an increasingly larger component of the COC’s Japanese program. The COC will emphasize the numerous health, and nutritional attributes of California ripe olives to consumers. As Japanese consumers increasingly seek convenient health foods, the COC’s marketing strategy will prioritize attention on the health benefits of ripe olives. Activities that could strengthen impact include online recipes, cooking shows, cookbooks, magazines, and further restaurant and retail promotions. Other activities targeting trade and consumers including advertising and food-service promotions are also being planned. The COC will continue to work closely with its in-country representatives to fine tune an optimal promotional strategy. As the volume of California ripe olives available at retail remains limited, increasing distribution is the top priority for the COC. The COC will continue to cultivate relationships with the Japanese trade through frequent market visits, further raising the profile of California ripe olives in the market. With a foundation in place from the initial years of programming, the COC is well-positioned to facilitate increased sales of California ripe olives to Japan. In its initial year of MAP funding, the COC focused efforts on laying the groundwork for promotional efforts that expand distribution and sales of California ripe olives to Japan. First steps included contracting with an in-market representative and conducting extensive market research to assist in fine-tuning its promotional strategy. The COC also implemented an in-store promotional campaign with Costco Japan which led to increased sales and boosted consumer awareness of California olives. Furthermore, the COC also participated in the ATO-led “Taste of America” promotion, during which California olives were featured on the menus of three Tokyo area restaurants. To support its efforts in the market, COC also developed a Japanese language website and promotional materials. Following the progress made in 2017, the COC kicked off the 2018 program year with a booth at the Japan Supermarket Trade show in February, where COC representatives established new trade contacts on behalf of the industry. Additional in-store sampling and promotional campaigns with other retailers are being planned to increase both sales and awareness of California ripe olives. The COC’s proposed third year of promotional activities aims to build on these market development efforts and to increase sales of California ripe olives in Japan.

150 California Olive Committee Japan Program

2018 Year End Report

March 26, 2019

151 Importation of Table Olives to Japan

The top three origins of imported olives in Japan are Spain, the United Olive Imports from Major Origins States and Italy, according to the statistics released by the Japanese Ministry of Finance, Statistics Bureau. The Spanish olives, the leading 3,000 table olive supplier to Japan, almost doubled in volume as compared to ten years ago from 1,220 metric tons to 2,220 tons. The other two 2,500 leading origins did not show significant change over the last decade. 2,000 218 - Spain 2018 Olive Imports to Japan 220 - Italy 1,500 304 - USA Rank Country Volume Value (JPY) (metric tons) 1,000 1 Spain 2,220.599 566,859,000

2 United States 613.668 241,300,000 500 3 Italy 353.506 208,838,000

152 0 4 France 65.776 31,763,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 5 Morocco 42.413 11,671,000 Olive Imports 2017 - 2018 6 Greece 36.879 20,747,000 218 - Spain 350.000 7 Portugal 25.524 6,797,000 220 - Italy 304 - USA 300.000

Although the U.S. olives, mostly California olives, rank as the 250.000

number two imported olives in terms of both volume and value 200.000 (2018: 613.668 metric tons, valued at JPY 241,300,000), CA olive presence in retail environment is very limited. Retailers 150.000 that currently carry California olives are: Toho A-Price (82 100.000 locations), Sakagami (6 locations), Nisshin World Delicatessen (1 50.000

location), National Azabu (3 locations), Jupiter Coffee (68 0.000 locations) and Kaldi Coffee Farms (421 locations).

As a side note, Japan produced 394.8 tons of olives (for any 01/2017 02/2017 03/2017 04/2017 05/2017 06/2017 07/2017 08/2017 09/2017 10/2017 11/2017 12/2017 01/2018 02/2018 03/2018 04/2018 05/2018 06/2018 07/2018 08/2018 09/2018 10/2018 11/2018 12/2018 purpose), 95.3% of which in the Kagawa Prefecture. (2013)

The COC participated in the 52nd annual Supermarket Tradeshow 2018 at the Makuhari Messe near Tokyo on February 14- 16, 2018. The three-day event saw participation of 2,197 companies and organizations and attracted 88,121 visitors. 153

The California Olive Committee set up booth as part of the American Pavilion at the Bakery & Café Japan 2018 exhibition at the Tokyo Big Sight on July 17 – 19, 2019. The event attracted approximately 30,000 baking industry professionals from throughout Japan. 154

The California Olive Committee participated in the following tradeshows organized by the Toho A-Price wholesale stores.

Oita Prefecture, Kyushu (September 5, 2018) 155

Osaka (September 26, 2018)

The California Olive Committee participated in the following tradeshows organized by the Toho A-Price wholesale stores.

Okinawa (October 24, 2018) 156

The Toho A-Price show participations were all in partnership with the U.S. Embassy Tokyo, Agricultural Trade Office.

Due to the popularity of California olives during the tradeshows, Toho A-Price started carrying California olives in all 82 locations nationwide.

California Olives were showcased as an ingredient item at the annual 4th of July celebration at the U.S. Ambassador’s residence on June 27, 2019. 157

Website statistics for Jan 1, 2018 – Dec. 31, 2018

Sessions 387

Pageviews 2,374

Avg. Time on Site 00:05:00

Bounce Rate 57.11% 158

Most Popular Pages

Nutrients 257

Top page 213

About CA Olives 189

About COC 175

How Olives are Made 171

Official Japanese Facebook and Instagram accounts were started to effectively deliver California olive promotional information and recipes to Japanese consumers. https://www.facebook.com/california.ripe.olives.jpn/

The accounts were created in mid December, just in time for the Christmas holiday season and to support the nationwide in-store demonstrations in Toho A-Price wholesale supermarkets in late December.

The two accounts combined have a follower base of approximately 210. 159

https://www.instagram.com/california.ripe.olives.jpn/

In-store demonstrations were conducted in Toho A-Price locations throughout Japan:

Okinawa Region – 7 demo days, 157 units sold Kyushu Region – 36 demo days, 506 units sold Kansai Region - 47 demo days, 347 units sold Kanto Region – 11 demo days, 72 units sold Shikoku – 7 demo days, 122 units sold

TOTAL: 108 demo days conducted, 1,204 units sold

160 The products sold through the demos were Lindsay Naturals California Black and Green Ripe olives.

A round of in-store demonstrations were conducted in the Nisshin World Delicatessen store in Azabu, Tokyo on December 1 – 2 and 8 – 9.

56 units were sold (30 black and 26 green) for a value of JPY 26,320.

161 The products sold through the demos were Lindsay Naturals California Black and Green Ripe olives.

A day of in-store demonstration was conducted at the Sakagami supermarket Kiyose location on November 11, 2019. The demo-ed item was the Lindsay California Black Ripe Olives. 20 units were sold for a total sales of JPY 7,600.

Lindsay California Ripe Olives were sold through this in-store demo. 162

In 2018, the COC conducted a number of activities in the Canadian market. In May, COC representatives attended the SIAL Canada trade show in Montreal. At the show, the COC was able to meet with key importers, visit various retail establishments, and maintain a continuous relationship with Foreign Agricultural Service, in-country Agricultural Trade Office officials. Additionally, the COC has also established a relationship with an in-market contractor, R.E.P.S., Inc., which keeps COC updated on market conditions and opportunities for the California ripe olive industry.

Through connections established through R.E.P.S, Inc., the COC was provided the opportunity to participate in the 2018 tasteU.S. (Prenez Goût aux États) Global-Based Initiative (GBI). By participating in the program, the COC was able to secure over 40 in-store demos at various retail establishments in Montreal. The demos are also set to continue into 2019 and have resulted in a new joint-promotional effort with USA Rice on several of these upcoming in-store opportunities as well. Ultimately, participating in the tasteU.S. GBI has allowed the COC to benefit from additional promotional activities at a significantly lower cost to the industry.

Canada consumed approximately 31,500 metric tons of ripe olives in 2018, relying on imports to satisfy demand. Spain, a major player in the global olive trade, supplied 52 percent of all imported table olives in Canada, followed by Greece at 20 percent, and Italy at 5 percent. In 2018, the U.S. made up approximately 4 percent of all imported table olives in Canada. Overall, U.S. products continue to enjoy high popularity among Canadian consumers, giving California olives an opportunity to capture further market share in Canada.

Canada currently allows California ripe olives to be imported into the market at a 0 percent tariff, helping to maintain affordability for Canadian consumers. Canada remains a stable and attractive market for the U.S. and for California ripe olive exporters. With favorable trends in purchase and consumption, as well as a highly receptive market to U.S. goods, California ripe olive exports have the potential to increase in Canada following targeted promotion efforts.

The COC applied for and received Market Access Program (MAP) funds to conduct activities in the Canadian market in 2019. As the number one export market for California ripe olives, Canada is an important market for the industry. As such, COC plans to utilize MAP funding in 2019 to implement consumer and trade-focused activities to further develop the market. Emphasis will be placed on the unique qualities of California ripe olives compared to other origins as well as on their various uses, including as a healthier-for-you snack or as an ingredient incorporated into diverse cuisines.

163 California Olive Committee 2018 Season Recap Canada

In March, in-store representatives were contracted to visit all major banners, across Western Canada, Ontario, and Québec, and file store audit reports with photos. These reports were then reconciled and summarized by the COC’s in-country representative in Canada who subsequently filed them with the Committee. The audits covered the following: • Banner name • Origin • Product description • Can Size • Pricing • Brand

The in-store audits yielded a lot of valuable data, recapped in the charts below. The figures represent the data collected, organized by region.

CALIFORNIA CANNED OLIVE STORE AUDITS

Western Canada - Mar 2018 Banner Prov Description Size Price COSTCO AB Large Pitted Olives 6x398 ml $8.49 SAFEWAY AB Pitted Ripe Olives 398 ml $1.69 " " Sliced Ripe Olives 398 ml $1.69 " " Pitted Ripe Olives 375 ml $2.49 " " Sliced Ripe Olives 375 ml $2.49 " " Sliced Ripe Olives 398 ml $1.79 " " Pitted Ripe Olives 398 ml $1.79 " " Sliced Ripe Olives 200 ml $1.59 SOBEY'S AB Pitted Ripe Olives 398 ml $1.69 " " Sliced Ripe Olives 398 ml $1.69 " " Pitted Ripe Olives 375 ml $2.49

164 " " Sliced Ripe Olives 375 ml $2.49 " " Sliced Ripe Olives 398 ml $1.79 " " Pitted Ripe Olives 398 ml $1.79 " " Sliced Ripe Olives 200 ml $1.59 COOP AB Sliced Ripe Olives 398 ml $1.29 " " Sliced Ripe Olives 375 ml $2.69 " " Pitted Ripe Olives 398 ml $1.29 " " Pitted Ripe Olives 375 ml $2.69 " " Sliced Ripe Olives 200 ml $1.99 " " Pitted Ripe Olives 200 ml $1.99 SAVE ON AB Sliced Ripe Olives 375 ml $3.59 " " Pitted Ripe Olives 375 ml $3.59 " " Extra Large Pitted Ripe Olives 398 ml $3.69 " " Medium Pitted Ripe Olives 398 ml $3.69 " " Sliced Ripe Olives 200 ml $2.59 " " Pitted Ripe Olives 200 ml $2.59 " " Sliced Ripe Olives 125 ml $2.39 " " Sliced Ripe Olives 370 ml $2-5.00 " " Medium Pitted Ripe Olives 370 ml $2-5.00 " " Large Pitted Ripe Olives 370 ml $2-5.00 " " Extra Large Pitted Ripe Olives 370 ml $2-5.00 RCSS AB Large Pitted Ripe Olives 6-398 ml $9.49 " " Extra Large Whole Ripe Olives 398 ml $1.15

165 " " Medium Whole Ripe Olives 398 ml $1.15 " " Medium Pitted Ripe Olives 398 ml $1.15 " " Sliced Ripe Olives 375 ml $1.85 " " Pitted Ripe Olives 375 ml $2.18 " " Sliced Ripe Olives 398 ml $1.37 " " Sliced Ripe Olives 200 ml $1.18 IGA AB Sliced Ripe Olives 375 ml $2.49 " " Pitted Ripe Olives 375 ml $2.49 " " Super Colossal Ripe 375 ml $2.49 " " Pitted Ripe Olives 398 ml $1.69 " " Sliced Ripe Olives 398 ml $1.69 " " Sliced Ripe Olives 200 ml $1.69 " " Pitted Ripe Olives 200 ml $1.69 WALMART AB Sliced Ripe Olives 398 ml $1.37 " " Sliced Ripe Olives 375 ml $1.77 " " Pitted Ripe Oives 398 ml $1.77 " " Whole Ripe Olives 375 ml $1.77 " " Pitted Ripe Oives 375 ml $1.57

Quebec- March 2018

Retail Prov Sliced or Whole Size Price Notes/ Other Banner Super C QC Pitted Black Olives 398 ml $1.59 Super C Sliced Black Olives 398 ml $1.59

166 Super C Pitted Ripe 375 ml 2/$3.00 1.99 reg retail

Super C Sliced Ripe 375 ml 2/$3.00 1.99 reg retail

Super C Sliced Ripe 200 ml $1.29

Super C Pitted Ripe Olives 200 ml $1.29

Super C Black Olives in veg oil 1 kg $7.49

Metro On Sliced Black olives 398 ml $1.79

Metro Pitted Black Olives 398 ml $1.69

Metro Sliced Ripe 375 ml 2/$4.00 reg $2.69

Metro Pitted Ripe 375 ml 2/$4.00 reg $2.69

Metro Super Colossal pitted ripe 375 ml $3.29

Metro Sliced Ripe 200 ml $1.59 in pouches & tins Metro Pitted Ripe 200 ml $1.59

Metro Black Ripe Pitted 398 ml $2.29

Metro Black Ripe Sliced 398 ml $2.29

IGA QC Sliced Ripe 200 ml $0.99

IGA Pitted Ripe 398 ml $1.79

IGA Sliced Ripe 398 ml $1.79 IGA Sliced Ripe 398 ml $2.19 IGA Sliced Ripe 398 ml $2.59 IGA Pitted Ripe 398 ml $2.59 IGA Sliced Ripe 398 ml $2.19 IGA Pitted Ripe 398 ml $2.19

IGA QC Sliced Black Olives 125 ml $1.49 x

IGA QC Black Pitted Extra Large 398 ml $2.29 x

167 IGA Pitted Ripe 200 ml $0.99 reg. $1.39

IGA Sliced Ripe 200 ml $0.99 reg. $1.39

Maxi QC Medium Pitted 398 ml $1.48

Maxi Extra Large Pitted 398 ml $1.48

Maxi Medium Sliced 398 ml $1.48

Maxi Extra Large Sliced 398 ml $1.48

Maxi Sliced Ripe 398 ml 2/$3.00 reg. $1.79

Maxi Sliced Ripe 375 ml $1.98

Maxi Pitted Ripe 375 ml $1.98

Maxi Sliced Ripe 200 ml $1.49

Loblaws QC Medium Pitted 398 ml $1.49

Loblaws Extra Large Pitted 398 ml $1.49

Loblaws Medium Sliced 398 ml $1.49

Loblaws Extra Large Sliced 398 ml $1.49

Loblaws Sliced Ripe 398 ml $1.99 Reg $2.19

Loblaws Sliced Ripe 375 ml $1.99 Reg $2.19

Loblaws Pitted Ripe 375 ml $1.99 Reg $2.19

Loblaws Sliced Ripe 200 ml $1.59 Reg $1.69

Walmart QC Pitted Medium 398 ml $1.37

Walmart Sliced Black Olives 398 ml $1.37

Walmart Sliced Ripe 375 ml $1.77

168 Walmart Pitted Ripe 375 ml $1.77

Walmart Black Ripe Pitted 398 ml $1.79

Walmart Black Ripe Sliced 398 ml $1.79

Sliced Ripe 398 ml $1.77

Medium Pitted Ripe 398 ml $1.77

Costco QC Medium Pitted Ripe 6 X 398 $6.99 ml

Ontario- March 2018 Retail Prov Sliced or Whole Size Price Notes/ Other Banner Food ON whole 398 4/$5.00 1.49 reg Basics ml Food Sliced 398 4/$5.00 1.49 reg retail Basics ml Food Pitted Ripe 375 4/$5.00 1.99 reg retail Basics ml Food Sliced Ripe 375 4/$5.00 1.99 reg retail Basics ml Food Pitted Black Olives 450 g $2.99 Basics

Metro ON sliced Black olives 398 $1.69 ml Metro Pitted Black Olives 398 $1.69 ml Metro Sliced Ripe 375 $1.99 ml Metro Pitted Ripe 375 $1.99 ml Metro Super Colossal pitted ripe 375 $3.29 ml Metro Sliced Ripe 200 $1.59 ml Metro Pitted Ripe 200 $1.59 ml

169 Freshco ON Sliced Ripe 200 $0.99 ml Freshco Sliced Ripe 375 $1.99 ml Freshco Pitted Ripe 375 $1.99 ml Freshco

Sobeys ON Organic Pitted Black 398 $2.62 Olives ml Sobeys Sliced Ripe 375 $1.49 ml Sobeys Pitted Ripe 375 $1.49 ml Sobeys Super Colossal pitted ripe 375 $2.99 ml

No Frills ON Sliced Ripe 375 $1.87 ml No Frills Pitted Ripe 375 $1.87 ml No Frills Super Colossal pitted ripe 375 $1.69 ml No Frills Medium Pitted 398 $1.37 ml No Frills Extra Large Pitted 398 $1.37 ml No Frills Sliced Ripe 398 $1.37 ml

Loblaws ON Sliced Ripe 200 $1.59 ml Loblaws Sliced Ripe 375 $1.89 ml Loblaws Pitted Ripe 375 $1.89 ml Loblaws extra large pitted 398 $1.49 ml Loblaws medium pitted 398 $1.49 ml Loblaws Sliced 398 $1.49 ml

170 Loblaws piited Black Olives 700g $2.99

Walmart ON Pitted Medium 398 $1.37 ml Walmart Sliced Black Olives 398 $1.37 ml Walmart Sliced Ripe 375 $1.97 ml Walmart Black pitted (glass jar) 700g $2.97

Longos ON Sliced 375ml 1.49 Low Price Alert

Whole 375ml 1.49 Low Price Alert

Pitted Whole 375ml 1.49 Low Price Alert

Super Colossal Pitted 375ml 2.49

Sliced 398ml 1.49

Pitted Whole 398ml 1.49

171 Export Summaries southeast asia

Southeast Asia is home to growing economies that can fuel growth for U.S. agricultural exports, including California ripe olives. In 2017, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore had total olive imports valued at $5.5 million. Of this total, the American olive industry, which consists almost entirely of California olives, accounted for $195,575 in sales, or 3% of the market. This market share is in line with historical norms, with the U.S. supplying approximately 3% of olive imports in Southeast Asia since 2015. The broader category of pickled products in Southeast Asia was worth approximately $66 million in 2017, more than ten times the size of the olive market. Based on the size of this category and the positive reputation of U.S. products, California ripe olives have significant room to expand sales in Southeast Asia.

The Philippines is currently the largest export market for California ripe olives in Southeast Asia, importing more than $161,000 worth of California ripe olives in 2018, representing 13% of the market. The Malaysian market, however, is less developed than the Philippines for the California ripe olive industry, with products making up just 1% of the market share in 2018. Despite the current position, Malaysia has significant potential due to the opportunity to capture the market share of the growing middle class who are interested in unfamiliar and imported food products, such as California ripe olives. California currently holds one percent of the market share of the ripe olive category in Singapore. However, Singaporean consumers are highly familiar with U.S. food products and importers have expressed interest in expanding their offerings in this realm. Finally, California ripe olive exports to Thailand were valued at approximately $5,900, or 0.5% of total olive exports to the market. Like other countries in Southeast Asia, Thailand’s retail market is evolving with convenience stores, supermarkets, and hypermarkets gaining ground. Consumer preferences are shifting towards convenience foods, with a growing middle-class driving demand for more expensive and imported foods.

Southeast Asia is a new market for the California ripe olive industry. The strategy in this market is to capitalize on the growing middle class to expand the distribution of California ripe olives in this market. The COC has secured Agricultural Trade Promotion Program (ATP) funds to target importers and distributors with strong relationships with high-end retailers and imported food stores, as these are the most likely outlets to stock a premium product like California ripe olives. Many of these targets are already familiar with European olives, so identifying the unique features of California production will be particularly important to justify their inclusion in product mixes—especially at the higher prices that California ripe olives often command. Moving forward, the COC will continue to evaluate which countries to include in the marketing campaign based on the receptiveness of California ripe olive imports.

In July 2018, COC representatives conducted an initial market evaluation and engaged several key importers and members of the trade during an organized trade mission to Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines. The COC contracted the services of Lieu Marketing Associates as in-country representation to assist in the facilitation of these activities. Based upon this preliminary effort, the COC identified key opportunities and has begun to develop a strategy that aims to unlock the significant long-term potential in Southeast Asia. A copy of the report compiled by Lieu Marketing Associates is included on the following pages.

172 Malaysia Market Overview - Olives

Malaysia at a Glance

- Total area of 329,740 square kilometres - A multi-ethnic, multi-religious federation of 13 states and three federal territories - Consists of two regions (West and East Malaysia) separated by the South China Sea - One of Southeast Asia’s most vibrant economies - Population of 31.7 million people (2016) made up of 68.6% Malays (ethnic Bumiputera), 23.4% Chinese, 7.0% Indians and others. - Major languages spoken are Malay (official), English, Chinese dialects, Tamil - Median age is 28 years in 2016 - Annual growth rate of the population is 1.5% - US$1 = RM$4.06 approximately. Currency exchange can be done at airport, banks or moneychangers.

With a population of 31.7 million, it is one of the most developed nations in Southeast Asia. About half of its population falls in the middle to upper income group of consumers with GDP per capita 2016 income of $9,120. Its economy has a firm foundation that includes strong manufacturing, service and agricultural sectors.

With a Muslim population of 65 percent, the demand for halal foods by Malaysian consumers has increased over the years. The expectation of halal standard in food products have extended from meat and meat products to non-meat based products such snacks, confectionery, dairy, bakery, etc. Almost all food and ingredients destined for the food service sector must be certified halal. Halal is fast becoming recognized as a new benchmark for quality, hygiene and safety. Food products and ingredients that have halal certificates have added marketing value in Malaysia. Hence, most retailers, foodservice operators GAIN REPORT: Exporter Guide Annual 2017 Page 5 and food manufacturers are inclined to ask for halal certificates for non-meat based food products and ingredients.

The Malaysian food and beverage market is developed and sophisticated and supplied by local and imported products. With rising affluence and educational levels, consumers’ shopping and eating lifestyles have changed drastically over the years. Malaysians, especially in urban and cosmopolitan areas, prefer to shop in modern retail outlets which offer one-stop shopping. However, traditional stores such as provision and grocery shops, which are conveniently located in residential areas and workplaces, are still popular.

Malaysia continues to be a net importer of food with annual imports of $13 billion. In 2016, Malaysia’s total imports of consumer-oriented and edible fishery products were US$7.1 billion. Imports of this category from the United States were US$492 million, about 7 percent of market share. China is the major supplier with imports at $1.4 billion, representing 19 percent of the market share. India took the second spot with imports worth of $727 million (10%), followed by Thailand (9%), New Zealand (8%) and Australia (7%).

(Source: The World FactBook; Gain Report and Department of Statistics, Malaysia)

Olives in Malaysia:

- Sauces, dressings and condiments, including pickled products such as olives*, registered 5% value growth and 3% volume growth to reach MYR1.1 billion (US$271 million) and 80,900 tonnes in 2017. - Within this category, the retail value of pickled products was MYR33.0 million (US$8.1 million).

173 - The Western-style premium condiments segment is experiencing strong growth, with Malaysians now looking to experience new flavours. - Though Malaysians are relatively familiar with the taste of western-style condiments, some product adaptation (eg. taste/formula/etc) to suit or appeal to the local taste may encourage consumer preference towards a brand over its competitors. - Consumers show a preference for smaller pack sizes regardless of the selling price as they are cooking less at home and prefer smaller pack sizes. Consumers are also more concerned with having a lower cash outlay. - Convenience of storage will also encourage consumers to look for smaller pack sizes and hence encourage manufacturers to reduce pack sizes and selling prices to suit local needs. - Sauces, dressings and condiments* is set to record a CAGR of 3% at constant 2017 prices to reach MYR1.3 billion in 2022.

*Source; Euromonitor International. Statistics on import volumes and value for olives alone are not available.

Import Tariff/Duty:

Malaysia’s tariffs are typically imposed on an ad valorem basis, with a simple average applied tariff of 6.1 percent for industrial goods. For certain goods, such as alcohol, wine, poultry, and pork, Malaysia charges specific duties that represent extremely high effective tariff rates. Duties for tariff lines where there is significant local production are often higher. The Goods and Service Tax (GST) has been repealed and the old Sales and Service Taxation (SST) with possible modification will commence in September 2018. Malaysia is having a three months GST free holiday from June-August (2018).

Trip Photos:

Retail Market Visits

174 Trade Luncheon

175 Philippines Market Overview - Olives

Philippines at a Glance

- Total land area of 300,000 square kilometres - Total population of 102.6 million people (2016 est.) - 82.9% of the population are Catholics; 5% Muslim; 2.8% Evangelical; 2.3% Iglesia ni Cristo; 4.5% other Christian 4.5% and 2.5% others - The median age is 23.4 years - Population growth rate is 1.59% - Filipino (based on Tagalog) and English are official languages; there are eight major dialects - GDP Per Capita is US$2,877 (2015) - US$1 = PHP48.33

The Philippines is one of the fastest-growing economies in Asia. Philippine Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth reached 6.8 percent in 2016; the strongest in three years and the high- end of the Philippine Government (GPH) growth target of 6-7 percent for the year. For 2017, local economic planners expect GDP to grow 6.5-7.5 percent, increasing to 7-8 percent in the medium-term.

The bilateral relationship between the United States and the Philippines is unique because of the depth of historical and human ties, and a shared commitment to upholding democracy. Around 3.9 million Filipino-Americans1 constitute a major immigrant group in the United States, while more than 250,000 U.S. citizens reside in the Philippines. The U.S. Embassy in Manila is one of the largest overseas posts in the world reflecting the importance of this relationship.

The U.S. remains to be the Philippines’ largest supplier of agricultural products, and the Philippines is its 11th largest global market. U.S. agricultural exports to the Philippines increased 11 percent to $2.5 billion in 2016, driven by a robust economy and strong consumer spending.

The Philippines continues to be the largest U.S. market in Southeast Asia for consumer- oriented F&B products with export sales of $923 million in 2016, up two percent from the previous year. Traders recorded sales of U.S. F&B products to the Philippines will surpass the $1 billion mark in 2017 as it did in 2014.

(Source: Philippines Statistics Authority, World Fact Book, Asia Development Bank)

Olives in the Philippines: - The dressings, seasonings and condiments, including pickled products such as olives*, market in Philippines registered a positive compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.51% during the period 2011 to 2016 with a sales value of almost US$181 million in 2016, an increase of 3.69% over 2015. - Imports of U.S. condiments and sauces* alone to the Philippines amounted to US$24.8 million in 2016, an increase over US$20.4 million in 2015. In 2017, U.S. imports of condiments and sauces rose to US$33.6 million. - The consumption of sauces and condiments is likely to experience change due to the changing food preferences and consumer habits. - This product category is likely to expand at a healthy CAGR in the coming years due to increased usage of condiment sauces, including olives, in fast food items, such as pizzas, salads and sandwiches.

176 - To attain differentiation, some new product launches used added flavourings, inspiring consumers to prepare popular local dishes with a new twist. - Supermarkets and convenience stores have become popular channels for purchase of goods due to improvement in the standards of living of people.

*Source: Euromonitor International. Statistics on import volumes and sales of olives alone are not available.

Import Tariffs/Duty:

Bilateral and regional free trade agreements in recent years have intensified competition from ASEAN, Australia, New Zealand and China for U.S. products. As a party to the Association of Southeast Asia Nations Free Trade Agreement (AFTA), Philippine exports to the region benefit from the lower common effective tariff applicable to products of ASEAN members.

Tariff rates on all products (with exemptions for a few sensitive products such as rice) in the ASEAN region fell to between zero and five percent under the framework of the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA). The ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement (AANZFTA) provides products from Australia and New Zealand with the same lower tariffs as ASEAN-origin products.

Several U.S. agricultural exports to the Philippines face higher tariffs than competing products imported from ASEAN-member countries and/or ASEAN-FTA member countries such as Australia, New Zealand, China and India.

Trip Photos:

Retail Market Visits

177 178 Trade Luncheon

179 Singapore Market Overview - Olives

Singapore at a Glance

- Total area of 697 square kilometres - Highly developed and successful free-marketPlace logo economy - One of the highest per capita GDPs (US$58,497) in the world - Population of 5.6 million people (endor oflogotype 2017) here,made up of 74.3% of Chinese, 13.3% Malays and 9.1% Indians otherwise - Major languages spoken are English, Mandarin and Malay - Median age is 39.6 years in 2017 delete this. - Low annual birth rate of less than 1% - Tropical climate country with two distinct monsoon seasons (December-March; June- September) - US$1 = SG$1.30 approximately. Currency exchange can be done at airport, banks or moneychangers.

Singapore is a highly developed and successful free-market economy. It enjoys a remarkably open and relatively corruption-free environment, stable prices, and a per capita GDP higher than that of most developed countries. Unemployment is very low.

Strategically located in the middle of key trade flows from Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East and the U.S., Singapore is highly dependent on international trade; it is the 14th largest exporter and the 15th largest importer in the world. The top five trading partners are China, Malaysia, the United States, Indonesia and Hong Kong.

Singapore is almost entirely dependent on imports for all of its food requirements as there is very little local agricultural production owing to a scarcity of land.

Being at the cross-roads of major air and sea routes within the Asia Pacific region also allows Singapore to serve as a hub and major transshipment center for much of the Southeast Asian region and the Indian subcontinent. The country's role in regional trade is demonstrated by the fact that re-exports comprise between 45-50% of total exports. It is also serves as a regional food showcase and headquarters for international food and agricultural related companies.

In 2017, the U.S. exported a record US$893 million in consumer-oriented products to Singapore, with sales expected to grow in the coming years. Singapore is the fourth largest market for U.S. agriculture, fish, and forestry products. It is a leading market for high-value consumer-oriented products. The market is dynamic with high interest in new products, yet very competitive.

(Source: The World FactBook; Gain Report and Department of Statistics, Singapore)

Olives in Singapore:

- Sauces, dressings and condiments saw retail value growth of 2% to reach almost S$103 million, and retail volume growth of 1% to reach 13,700 tonnes in 2017. - Within this category, the retail value sales of pickled products, including pickled olives, was S$4.9 million. - This was mainly driven by increasingly hectic lifestyles, leading to increased demand for more convenient ways to shorten cooking time without compromising much on taste.

180 - Manufacturers were also quick to launch new products which are popular in foodservice establishments to meet consumers’ changing preferences. Observing what is popular in foodservice establishments and adapting the recipe into packaged sauces and condiments has helped companies stay ahead of competition. - Successful company strategies include launching healthier variants to meet increasingly health-conscious consumers and investment in research and development to constantly launch popular products, such as reduced-salt offerings, to meet consumer preferences.

Import Duty/Tariff:

There are no import tariffs or excise taxes for all food and beverages, except for alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. However, a Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 7% is levied for all goods and services at the point of distribution.

Trip Photos:

Retail Market Visits

181 Trade Luncheon

182 Thailand Market Overview - Olives

Thailand at a Glance

- Total land area of 513,120 square kilometres - Total population of 67,976 million people, comprising 95.9% Thai. 2% Burmese and 2% of others (2016) - 93.6% of the population are Buddhists (official religion); 4.9% are Muslims; 1.2% are Christians, and 0.3% of other religious denominations - The median age is 36.2 years - Thai is the official national language; English is widely spoken and understood - GDP Per Capita is US$5,732 (2015) - The second largest economy in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) - Thailand remains a strong agricultural competitor as it is the world’s leading exporter of natural rubber, frozen shrimp, canned tuna, canned pineapples, cooked poultry, and cassava. It is also a major exporter of sugar and rice. - US$1 = THB 35.30

Thailand is Southeast Asia’s second largest economy with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of U.S. $449 billion. Being at the crossroads of ASEAN and other dynamic markets in Asia such as China and India, makes Thailand an investors’ gateway to Asia and allows it access to a burgeoning consumer population overseas aside from its equally huge population of almost 68 million people. Having attained upper middle income status, the country aspires to reach higher-income status within the next two decades.

Thailand remains a strong agricultural competitor as it is the world’s leading exporter of natural rubber, frozen shrimp, canned tuna, canned pineapples, cooked poultry, and cassava. It is also a major exporter of sugar and rice.

The economy is expected to improve in 2018 due to favorable global economic growth; increased government spending particularly on infrastructure projects; favorable private investment trends; the continual expansion of key economic sectors; reduced unemployment, and increased and household income. In addition, the continual expansion of the tourism sector will continue to fuel economic growth. Thailand is the 15th largest export market for U.S. agricultural products. In 2016, U.S. consumer oriented agri-food exports to Thailand were valued at U.S. $411 million while total U.S. agricultural imports of these products from Thailand were nearly U.S. $1.5 billion.

Thailand currently has preferential trade arrangements with the Association of Southeast Asian Nation countries (ASEAN), Australia-New Zealand, China, India, Japan, Peru, South Korea, and Chile. These agreements have created additional challenges for U.S. agricultural exports, particularly due to large tariff differentials.

(Source: The World Factbook and Asia Development Bank)

Olives in Thailand:

- In 2017, sauces, dressings and condiments* in Thailand recorded retail volume growth of 3% and current value growth of 6% to reach sales of 415,000 tonnes and THB42.1 billion (US$1.2 billion), respectively.

183 - The retail value sales of pickled products, such as olives, stood at THB1,697.9 million (US$50.99 million). - Despite the recovering economy in 2017, domestic spending remained largely conservative, affecting categories such as sauces, dressings and condiments. - Manufacturers addressed this challenge in various ways, for example by launching more premium products to achieve higher margins, running major price promotions, introducing products in smaller pack sizes and adding new variants to their ranges. Cross-category innovation was also adopted, such as teaming up with processed meat players to gain recognition beyond their core categories. - The rising popularity of vegetarian dishes in ready meals seemed to resonate with manufacturers. - Supermarkets are expected to play a stronger role in the distribution of sauces, dressings and condiments in the next five years as more consumers visit these larger and modern retailers as a one-stop shop for all their grocery needs. This will come at the expense of independent grocery retailers. - Smaller pack sizes may become more widely used, eventually surpassing original pack sizes in terms of popularity.

*Source: Euromonitor International. Statistics for import volumes and sales of olives alone are not available.

Import Duty/Tariff:

Thailand has bound its agricultural tariffs at an average of 39.9% ad valorem, compared with its average applied MFN tariff on agricultural products of 22%. MFN duties on imported processed food products range from 5% to 60%, which limits the ability of U.S. exporters of such products to compete in the Thai market. There is a 30% tariff on processed olives from the USA.

Trip Photos:

Retail Market Visits

184 Trade Luncheon

185 Export Summaries China

In 2017, the COC was granted Emerging Market Program (AMP) funding to conduct a market assessment in China. The COC then retained the services of Bryant Christie, Inc. to facilitate the program and ultimately determine the prospects of success for California ripe olives in the Chinese market. Essentially, 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 recommendations for the COC’s market development strategy through assessing importers’ business and product needs.

After conducting a thorough analysis, it was ultimately determined that income growth, economic development, and ongoing demand for western products at retail and in the food-service sector create an opportunity for California ripe olive exports to China. Unfortunately, however, the 2018 trade dispute that has begun between China and the U.S. has not only resulted in the imposition of tariffs on many agricultural products, including olives, but has also resulted in a sense of insecurity in the market. In response to the U.S.- imposed Section 232 tariffs, China launched its first round of retaliatory tariffs in early April. As a response, the U.S. then announced Section 301 tariffs, triggering two more retaliations from China in July and August. As of April 2, 2018, the Government of China has imposed a total 25% tariff on all olives of U.S. origin in retaliation for the U.S. imposition of Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum. In addition to the tariffs, the trade war has created an adverse “ripple” effect on other markets. Other countries who cannot feasibly ship to China anymore are now sending their products to markets that we do currently utilize, thus creating greater competition for California to maintain its current market share in other markets.

Finally, many Chinese companies are receiving pressure from their government officials to cease business activities with U.S. companies until an agreement can be reached between the two countries regarding trade. Following the advice of FAS, the COC has decided to place a hold on its plans to pursue further EMP funding and activities in the Chinese market at this time. As soon as the U.S.’s relationship with China improves, the COC will seek the next opportunity to build upon the foundation that was established through our ground work in 2017.

186 Export Summaries India

In 2017, the COC received Emerging Market Program (EMP) funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service in order to conduct a market assessment in India for ripe olives. The COC representatives traveled to Delhi and Mumbai in India during the fall of 2017 in order to participate in a USDA organized Trade Mission with Undersecretary Ted McKinney. During this visit, the COC had the opportunity to visit many key industry contacts, including importers, retailers, and distributors in India. Overall, the COC received generally positive feedback from these meetings, however, the main concern regarding California ripe olives was price. While the average expendable incomes of Indian consumers is growing, it still remains difficult for California to compete on price with other subsidized products from the European Union.

The COC contracted the services of Callanan & Callanan Consulting (CCC), who partnered with Antar Advisers Pvt. Ltd., to compile a final report consisting of a market assessment/research on the potential for California ripe olive sales in the Indian market. The following objectives of this study were to:

a. Identify opportunities and the competitiveness of California ripe olives in the market considering specific demand growth areas, competitor prices, import tariffs, transportation costs, and any regulatory impediments to trade; b. Identify the importers’ business and product needs such as: specific grades and sizes they require, trade financing, and the distribution system for olives c. Develop a stronger understanding of the Indian retail markets including consumer trends, distribution, pricing, regulations, key importers, and destinations of importance.

In order to accomplish these objectives, the COC focused its research on assessing the relevant Indian retail and traditional food distribution channels, consumer and trade preferences and perceptions of olives, and opportunities to expand usage of olives among Indian consumers and the foodservice sector. Based on the general findings, it does not seem that there are immediate opportunities for California ripe olives in the Indian market; however, as the Indian market and consumer base continues to evolve, there may opportunities for the industry in the future. For this reason, the COC did not apply for additional EMP funds for India in 2018, but instead made the decision to focus on markets that are more price competitive for the California industry. The final report received from the CCC on the Indian market for California ripe olives is contained on the following pages.

187 India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee

Callanan & Callanan Consulting, LLC 7813 Attleboro Drive Springfield, VA 22153 C: +202 441 5955 E: [email protected]

188 Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary ...... 3

II. Methodology ...... 5

III. Background ...... 6

IV. Indian Economy & Market Conditions ...... 7

V. Assessment & Conclusions ...... 14

VI. Company Profiles ...... 16

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 2 of 53

189 I. Executive Summary

Callanan & Callanan Consulting (CCC) was contracted by the California Olive Committee (COC) to conduct a market assessment/research on the potential of the Indian market for California ripe olives. Using Emerging Market Program (EMP) funds, COC initiated a project to gather market information and evaluate the Indian market for ripe olives and its potential for growth.

COC set the following objectives for the India market assessment: a. Identify opportunities and the competitiveness of California ripe olives in the market considering specific demand growth areas, competitor prices, import tariffs, transportation costs, and any regulatory impediments to trade; b. Identify the importers’ business and product needs such as: specific grades and sizes they require, trade financing, and the distribution system for olives c. Develop a stronger understanding of the Indian retail markets including consumer trends, distribution, pricing, regulations, key importers, and destinations of importance

To accomplish these objectives, CCC partnered with Antar Advisors Pvt. Ltd (Antar), specifically its CEO, Peush Narang. Antar is an Ahmedabad-based consulting group that offers clients personalized services with a focus on retail and traditional market promotion of imported goods in India. The research focused on assessing the relevant Indian retail and traditional food distribution channels, consumer and trade preferences and perceptions of olives and opportunities to expand usage of olives among Indian consumers and the foodservice sector.

The following are our primary conclusions from this assessment:

Packaging and Pricing Challenges May Pose a Significant Barrier to Entry Through our interviews and product research, there is a clear preference for glass packaging as the prevailing assumption is that Indian consumers like to see the products they buy on display and especially so for food items. Nearly all of the olives currently available at retail are offered in glass jars, and/or out of packaging most often at traditional markets. Many of the buyers said they would only be interested in sourcing product in jars, which may add significant repackaging costs as COC shippers currently only offer cans. Repackaging costs would only add to a very challenging pricing scenario for California olives. At present, the average cost per oz. of olives available in the market varies between 5-25 cents less than California olives. As this price gap would only go up after adding costs from import tariffs, shipping and (potentially) repackaging, California ripe olives would face strong competition from importers already present in the market.

Olives are Not a Common Inclusion in Cultural/Traditional Food Preparations Requiring Massive Marketing/Education Effort to Rectify Olives, regardless of origin, are not a commonly consumed, prepared or consistently offered product at Indian retail, traditional markets or foodservice outlets, which presents a significant challenge for California ripe olives. Unlike the Mediterranean or Middle East,

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 3 of 53

190 olives are not a traditionally grown nor consumed commodity in India. Olives, along with a host of other popular international foods, have made their way into the market as the country has modernized and become a global economic and cultural power. To create significant demand for olives, let alone California ripe olives, a dedicated and large-scale marketing and education effort would need to be launched in India. Such activities could include participation at Indian foodservice trade shows, chef demonstrations, recipe contests, trade missions and direct marketing and education at retail and traditional markets, all of which would require a significant investment of manpower and funding.

A Dedicated Market Development Campaign Could Have Success While launching a market development program in India would be a significant investment of time and money, the chances for success for COC and its members would be high. The primary challenge is the unfamiliarity of Indians with olives as a food item. Consumption is low and derived from imports, which are small but growing. Imported olives, 95% of which originate in Spain, grew from 789 MT valued at $2 million in 2012 to 3,433 MT in 2015-16, up 26% from the previous year. Positively, interviews with the trade and current consumption trends, strongly suggest a pronounced preference for black olives versus green. As the moment, no domestic or foreign entity has undertaken a promotion program in India leaving it an open market for messaging, educational programs and advertisement. COC and its membership would be able to introduce their product to Indian trade and consumers without having to answer to competing claims or established origins, negative claims of competing products or dissuade target audiences of any preconceived ideas detrimental to California ripe olives. The same could be said of many developing markets, but India’s demographics and rising income levels offer a great deal more opportunity for growth of long-terms sales than almost any other developing market in the world. If COC could position California ripe olives properly, the Indian market could be a beneficial and stable trading partner for years to come.

Taking the points above as a whole, CCC and Antar cannot offer a strong or confident recommendation to COC and its membership to launch a long-term market development program, but we believe it would have a greater than average chance to succeed were adequate resources to become available. India is a very unique marketplace and having a small amount of success in just one of its major cities or regions could absorb a significant volume of product, but with pricing, packaging and the lack of awareness challenges listed above, we believe it would take a long-term and potentially costly investment to ensure success.

Detailed findings supporting the foregoing conclusions are presented in the body of the report.

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 4 of 53

191 II. Methodology

To complete this market assessment in India on behalf of COC, CCC executed the following:

1. CCC worked with COC staff to develop a timeline for all activities, interim reports and final deliverables for the project.

2. CCC engaged the services of an in-country representative, Antar Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (Antar), to help conduct a large-scale analysis of Indian ripe olive consumption, consumer trends and market segmentation; retail and traditional market distribution channels; and competition, pricing and regulatory requirements relevant to ripe olives to develop an initial market assessment.

3. CCC and Antar interviewed the identified contacts to obtain specific information regarding potential threats or opportunities for the import, promotion and long-term market potential for California ripe olives in India and through which process CCC and Antar also identified potential buyers and promotional partners for COC and its members.

4. CCC and Antar utilized all of the information obtained to provide a detailed and final market assessment. If the industry decides to move forward, CCC will include specific recommendations for COC to begin initial market development activities.

Additionally, CCC was tasked with arranging meetings with potential buyers and in-country partners for COC staff who traveled to India between October 28-November 6, 2017, to take part in a USDA/FAS arranged trade mission. Antar hosted COC staff, including presentations and introductions at all business meetings and developed a full itinerary around the existing framework of the USDA/FAS organized mission. COC staff and Antar were able to meet and interview the following contacts as part of this activity:

- Max Foods Inc. - Future Group - Big Basket - Godrej Nature’s Basket - Vriddhi Speciality Foods Pvt Ltd. - Suresh Kumar & Co. (Impex) Pvt. (VSFL) Ltd. - Bajoria Foods - LCOMPS - Delta Nutritives - V.S. Logistics - Chenab Impex - FieldFresh Foods Private Limited - Nuts 'n' Spices - Neo Foods - MRK Foods - Tajir Private Limited - Rovin Impex Pvt. Ltd. - KSMD Impex Pvt. Ltd - METRO Cash & Carry - BMS Enterprises

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 5 of 53

192

III. Background

The California Olive Committee (COC) is comprised of two canneries and nearly a thousand growers who are responsible for producing over 95% of olives grown in the United States. Olive growers in California farm about 27,000 acres of land in both the northern and southern regions of the state, generating an average of over $490 million in annual economic output. The COC administers marketing order programs for olive growers and canners under Federal Marketing Order No. 932 and the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. At the present time, provisions of the Marketing Order apply only to black and green canned olives, and not to tree ripened, Spanish style, olive oil, Sicilian, Greek, or other styles of olives. The Committee’s Board represents the entire CA ripe olive industry, consisting of eight producer and handler members, plus alternates, all of whom serve two-year terms. As a Marketing Order, decisions made by the Committee are subject to approval by the Secretary of the U. S. Department of Agriculture.

The program is funded by a mandated assessment, established every December, on each ton of olives received for use as canned ripe olives. Committee functions and expenditures fall into four main categories:  Administrative  Crop & Processing Research  Incoming & Outgoing Inspection  Marketing and Public Relations, include Crisis Communication

Each year, the olive industry funds research conducted by the University of California and others on various issues affecting production. In recent years, funds have been allocated to combat the olive fruit fly profiling, mechanical harvesting, and disease prevention. Meanwhile, incoming regulations set up under the Order state that each lot of natural condition olives received by a handler, designated for canned ripe olives, are size graded by California State inspectors and classified as canning, limited, undersize, or culls to ensure fair payment to the grower for his fruit. Outgoing regulations require that inspection be made of canned olive products by inspectors of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to ensure compliance with standards of size, color, and flavor. The outgoing inspection 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.

The COC executes various marketing and PR efforts designed to promote awareness and consumption of ripe olives from California. These efforts are currently implemented by FleishmanHillard, a top global communications firm that specializes in public relations, public affairs, marketing, paid media, and social content. The COC’s marketing plan is focused on providing information to both consumers and retailers regarding the many uses of California olives, nutritional benefits, as well as fostering a high-quality image for California ripe olives, ultimately serving to differentiate the California product from imports.

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 6 of 53

193

Indian Economy & Market Conditions

With more than 1.28 billion people, India is the largest English-speaking country and second most populated country in the world. India, while still a developing country in many respects, boasts the fourth largest economy, trailing only China, the EU and the United States of America. GDP in terms of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)1 is valued at $9.45 trillion exceeding the fifth largest economy (Japan, with a GDP of $5.41 trillion) by nearly 50%. Moreover, it is growing at an impressive rate, increasing by 6.5% or more over the past five years2 (Figure 1). India’s Real GDP was valued at $2.26 trillion in 2016 and is expected to reach $3.60 trillion by 2020, exceeding the expected growth of all other major economies or trade blocs:

1 GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates is the sum value of all goods and services produced in the country valued at prices prevailing in the United States 2 CIA World Factbook – India, February 2018

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 7 of 53

194

The outlook for India's long-term growth is positive due to a young population with healthy savings and investment rates, along with increasing integration into the global economy. However, long-term challenges remain significant, including an inefficient infrastructure that is hampered by poor power generation and a disjointed and unreliable distribution system that is hobbled by the lack of interconnected and safe highway systems. Governance has also stood in the way of growth by heavily regulating international investment, on the one hand, while ineffectively enforcing intellectual property rights leading to decades-long civil litigation dockets.

The country’s GDP encompasses many sectors, including traditional village farming interspersed with isolated pockets of modern agriculture, handicrafts, a wide range of modern industries, and a multitude of services, including large-scale call centers that service most of the English-speaking world. Slightly less than half of the workforce is in agriculture, the majority of which are family operations with little to no modern machinery in use. India has become a major exporter of information technology services, business outsourcing services, and software workers, and yet per capita income remains below the world average.

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 8 of 53

195

Almost all major future economic growth is expected to come from services industries, accounting for nearly two-thirds of India's economic output but employing less than one- third of its labor force.

India’s “Middle Class” and Disposable Income While most of India's basic macro-economic measures and statistics are impressive, they fail to capture the on-the-ground micro-economic realities for many Indians. India’s current per capita GDP reached $7,200 in 2017, its highest mark ever, which ranked an abysmal 156th in the world.3 This is important to remember when analyzing broad economic statistics to assess new market opportunities for imported products. While India’s economic ascendancy over the past two decades has been impressive, its earned wealth has been spread thin among more than a billion people, and great wealth disparity exists between intra-country economic regions and classes. India’s “middle class” for example, consists of individuals with between $2 and $10 per capita in discretionary spending per day. This categorization lags far behind the standards of most developed nations, and even some smaller developing nations, where middle class is typically defined to be between $10-$20 in per capita daily discretionary spending, or an annual income between $14,600 and $29,200.4

To put things in more real terms, the latest iPhone, which costs $1,400 in India, represents five months’ pay for an Indian who just makes it into the top 10% of earners. Another gauge is whether people can afford the more basic material goods, and for Indians that typically means a car or scooter, a television, a computer, air conditioning and a fridge. A government survey in 2012 found that under 3% of all Indian households owned all five items, and the median household had no more than one.

An Indian earning just over $20,000 ranks in the top 1% of earners, which, adjusted for PPP, is a comfortable income equating to over $75,000 in the U.S. However, in terms of being able to afford imported goods at much the same price across the world, more than 99% of the Indian population is in the same league as Americans below the poverty line (around $25,000 for a family of four).5

Compounding these issues even further, the top 1% of Indians are squeezing out the rest as they earn 22% of the entire income pool, compared with 14% for China’s top 1%. Since 1980, this elite group has captured nearly a third of all national growth resulting in the highest worldwide growth in income gap between the top 1% and that of the population as a whole.6 Looking at wealth as opposed to income, Credit Suisse established in 2015 that only 25.5 million Indians had a net worth over $13,700, equating to roughly $50,000 in the U.S., and two-thirds of that cohort’s wealth was held by just 1.5 million upper-class savers with at least $137,000 in net assets. While India’s middle class may be far from wealthy, its rich are truly rich by any real or adjusted measure. There are over 200,000 millionaires in India, and Forbes counts 101 billionaires and adds one more to its list roughly every two months.

3 CIA World Factbook: India, February 2018 4 Pew Research Fact Tank, December 2017 5 “Indian Income Inequality, 1922-2015” – Paris School of Economics, July 2017 6 “Indian Income Inequality, 1922-2015” – Paris School of Economics, July 2017

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 9 of 53

196

In absolute terms, India has wealth roughly comparable to Switzerland (population 8 million) or South Korea (51 million). A population about the size of India’s top 10% and boasting roughly the same spending power, is akin to a country in central Europe, so targeted marketing is key to capitalizing on these market segments more so than India’s broader “middle class”.

Indian Market Segmentation – Developed vs. Traditional Markets With the above context in mind, it’s easier to understand why India’s middle-class growth, has not led to massive market modernization. The overwhelming majority of India’s consumer sales in the retail sector remain highly fragmented, transacting through more than 15 million various outlets including local or village shops, general stores, corner shops and among various other small retail chains, often times limited to tier 2 or tier 3 cities.7

Source: ASSOCHAM India Report, Ernst & Young, PWC, Economic Times, TechSci Research, IBEF.org

While the Indian retail sector has seen major changes over the last decade, the vast majority of consumer goods are still purchased in the “traditional” or unorganized sector. While current estimates attribute only 9% of retail sales to the organized sector, this figure represents a dramatic increase since the turn of the century when the organized sector accounted for less than 1% of consumer sales.8

7 India Brand Equity Foundation – 2017 Report 8 India Brand Equity Foundation – 2017 Report

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 10 of 53

197

While disorganized and underdeveloped, the Indian retail sector has become a massive marketplace, valued at more than $670 billion as of 2016. Most experts expect India retail to eclipse the trillion-dollar mark before the end of decade, and recent studies by Ernst & Young and Deloitte project that the sector will reach $1.15 trillion by 2020. A major driver of growth is expected to be the developed sector, with organized or modern retail accounting for 24% of the Indian retail sector by 2020.9

The food and grocery category is the largest product category within the Indian retail sector, accounting for more than two-thirds of all consumer sales. As of 2015, food and grocery sales represented 69% of all consumer sales India, followed by apparel, jewelry and IT products. As is often the case in developing markets, higher-quality foods and imported grocery products are a sign of growing consumer affluence, as these items become an attainable luxury item for consumers who are earning disposable income for the first time. However, as the economy continues to mature, food and grocery sales are expected to recede somewhat as luxury apparel and personal IT or electronics become attainable. As a result, most market forecasters believe that the food and grocery category will give up 3% of market share to other sectors by 2020. Even with a decrease in overall share, the food and grocery category in India is projected to exceed $850 billion dollars before the end of the decade, becoming one the largest marketplaces for food in the world. Even more encouraging for high-value food producers such as COC members, the organized sector is expected to grow from $65 billion to nearly $315 billion over the same period. As the marketplace modernizes, retailers will be under enormous pressure to offer new and differentiated products to distinguish themselves among competing outlets, providing market entry opportunities for imported goods, especially in the food and grocery sector.

9 India Brand Equity Foundation – 2017 Annual Report

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 11 of 53

198

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 12 of 53

199

Indian Olive Production & Market Overview While India has begun a dedicated effort to cultivate olive production during the past decade, almost the entire crop is used for oil production. Cultivation began in 2007 in the state of Rajasthan as an agricultural development partnership program between the Israeli and Indian governments. Trial plantings were tested in seven separate agro-climate zones, covering 240 hectares with a primary focus of growing olives for oil production. The program has expanded since its inception and currently 200 hectares are managed by the National Mission on Oilseeds and Oil (NMOOP) and 5,000 hectares under the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY), a farmer assistance and subsidy program focused on developing olive oil production nation-wide. The oil is marketed under the name “Raj Olive Oil” and produced roughly 10,000 liters in the 2015-16 season. Within the cultivation program, some ripe olives are being tested, but not in any significant volume and virtually no produce has reached the consumer marketplace. Among the varieties being cultivated are:10

- Fresh/Whole Olives: Mission, Cornicobra, Ascolano, Grosseune, Picholine - Olives for Oil: Coratina, Canino, Algandeau, Frontoio, Carolea, Pendolino & Ascolanaterena

Without a domestic supply to displace, India is a virtually untapped market for ripe olives. Imports, 95% of which are from Spain, are small but growing, reaching 3,433 Metric Tons (MT) in 2015-2016, up 26% from 2,722 MT in 2014-2015. While the total market size is relatively small, it has grown significantly from just a few seasons ago. In 2012 for example, imports totaled just 789 metric tons with a value of less than $2 million.

Consumer & Importer Preference for Black Olives Through interviews conducted by CCC and Antar, there is a clear preference for black olives over green olives, and the recent trade data reflects this trend as black olive imports account for all of the increase over the past few seasons. Between 2015-16 and 2016-17, black olive imports increased from 1,336 MT to 2,199 MT, up 64.6%, while green and unspecified varieties declined 13.7% from 1,386 MT to 1,223 MT. During meetings with grocery category managers at major Indian retailers, most believe black or darker colored olives are

10 http://www.agrifarming.in/olive-farming/

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 13 of 53

200

the overwhelming consumer preference in India, which could be welcome news for California producers of black olive varieties.

Nearly all of the ripe olives exported to India originate in Spain, the world’s largest olive producer and exporter. Other major exporting countries are Italy, Turkey, and Greece, but combined they represent less than 5% of the imported ripe olive market.

Ripe Olives Not A Traditional Food, Nor Included in Common Cultural Cuisine Unlike the middle east or Mediterranean, olives are not a commonly consumed food item in India and are almost entirely absent from cultural or traditional Indian cuisine. To date, no major olive producing origin, organization, or domestic retailer has launched a dedicated promotion or education program focusing on olives in India. As a result, Indian consumers are largely unaware of ripe olive availability or their use a snack food and/or in international cuisine, and even fewer if any are knowledgeable about the nutritional benefits, let alone the unique attributes of California ripe olives versus other origins. Any promotion program for ripe olives would be essentially starting from scratch.

Market Access and Tariffs CCC and Antar have reviewed the inspection protocols and requirements for importing fresh products and processed food items into India and conclude that trade access would not be an issue or present any barrier at this time. However, as is often the case in many developing nations, the stated policies, procedures and regulations can be subject to interpretation, so the possibility for trade disruption still exists. We would recommend that any new or prospective importer work closely with the appropriate Federal and State health and inspection agencies in preparing a shipment to India to ensure delivery of all products with minimal difficulty.

Tariffs, however, are another matter, and could add to California’s price disparity issue that will be described in detail in the next section. As CCC and Antar understand, all shipments of California ripe olives could be subject to a 50% tariff, applicable to all imports of fresh food sold into India. While this is the official policy, the applied tariff or realized cost of import could be less.

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 14 of 53

201

IV. Market Assessment & Conclusions

CCC and Antar view the Indian market as a virtually untouched market for ripe olives, which will offer COC and its membership unique challenges as well as opportunities. As mentioned in our summary section above, pricing, packaging and lack of awareness will pose an enormous obstacle for California ripe olives, but the size and growth potential of the Indian food and grocery market may make a long-term development and promotional program a worthy investment. The following are CCC and Antar’s summation of COC and its memberships’ biggest opportunities and challenges for establishing a market in India:

CHALLENGE: Price Analysis and Competitiveness Perhaps the most difficult challenge preventing COC and its membership from gaining a foothold in India will be the landed price of the product. While India does not produce ripe olives of any significant volume, imported product from Spain is already offered at several developed and traditional markets at prices below what CCC and Antar would expect COC members to be able to offer to India retailers. CCC and Antar surveyed the Indian market and compared current prices to California ripe olives (available at retail in the U.S. market) to come up with the following price averages. As the most commonly offered olive packaging in India is 450 grams (roughly 15.9 oz) and California products are most commonly offered in 4.5oz or 6oz cans (between 120.5-170.1 grams), the prices have been calculated by ounce:

Price Range per Oz For the average packaging size of Product existing California product, this (in USD) could mean a price difference of Olives at Indian Retail $.11 - $.23 between $.75 and $1.00 a unit, and this pricing wouldn’t take California Olives at US Retail $.25 - $.35 into account import tariffs (could be up to 40% under current trade agreements) or any added costs from repackaging, which our next section will discuss in detail.

CHALLENGE: Packaging Preference Is a Non-Starter for Most Potential Partners Adding to the price disparity described above, Indian trade and consumers have a strong preference for glass and/or clear packaging. Nearly all ripe olives currently available at retail are offered in glass jars (most often 450 grams, roughly 15.9 oz), and/or out of their original packaging when sold at traditional markets (which greatly diminishes COC membership and other shippers from doing effective on-product marketing). Many of the buyers interviewed said they would only be interested in sourcing product in jars, which may add significant repackaging costs as COC shippers predominately offer cans.

For California product to be immediately price competitive with product available at Indian retail, Antar has put together the following estimation chart for suggested FOB that assumes California shippers have repackaged product to fit market preferences (450 gram glass jars):

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 15 of 53

202

Particulars Price Range In USD Remarks Retail Price INR 190-220 $ 2.97 - 3.44 Expected Price for COC product 20% margin considered for Landing price at Retailer INR 158 -183 $ 2.47 - 2.86 Retailer Landing Price at Importer / 20% margin considered for INR 132- 153 $ 2.06 - 2.39 Distributor Distrubor /importer Import Duty INR 38- 44 $ 0.59 - 0.68 For Gross wt 450 gms , Glass Jar , FOB Price INR 94 - 109 $ 1.47 - 1.71 Net content 220 -280 gms

OPPORTUNITY: Washington and U.S. Apple Market Development Template While the challenges above pose a significant barrier for COC membership in establishing a market for California olives in India, other USDA/FAS programs have had tremendous success in the market through a dedicated market development program. Beginning in 2008, the two largest U.S. apple export promotional groups (the U.S. Apple Export Council and the Washington Apple Commission) agreed to hire and share one representative in India and began basic market development activities. These activities included reverse trade missions that brought India buyers and category managers to meet U.S. producers, participation at Indian-focused trade shows and partnership promotions at high-end Indian retailers. Within the first year of the program in India, U.S. shippers sold significant volumes to importers they had met through EMP-funded activities. In less than a decade, sales of U.S. apples to India have grown from virtually nothing to more than 5.5 million boxes annually with an estimated value of $100 million, making India the third largest export destination for U.S. apples in terms of value and volume. CCC cautions that the scenario described above is different from the situation facing COC in India today (apples were a new product offering, it’s a widely popular snack food in many different parts of the world and U.S. shippers has millions of boxes of available volume to divert product to India over the relatively short period of time), but believes COC could have success if the industry is willing to make a significant investment in market development.

OPPORTUNITY: Imported Products Highly Valued, Retailer Competing to Offer Unique Food Items, Strong Probability of Success of a Partnership Promotion While the importers and category managers interviewed by CCC and Antar were lukewarm to the prospects for California ripe olives (primarily due to price and packaging concerns explained above), many maintained that there could still be an opportunity at luxury and high-end retailers. The majority opinion of interviewees was that a partnership promotion would be necessary to ensure California ripe olives would resonate with Indian consumers and help justify the increased price of the product versus competing origins. Most of our contacts were excited about the opportunity to source new products from the U.S., especially California, as they all agreed that both origins held a great deal of positive association with their customers. Imported products are highly valued by India’s upper

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 16 of 53

203 middle and wealthy consumers, and often provide high margins for luxury retailers, who are under enormous pressure to source new and unique items to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Despite being unable to find a willing trading partner in our interview process (again, primarily due to packaging and price concerns), we have little doubt that many would volunteer to lead a pilot partnership promotional program and try to be the first retailer to source California ripe olives.

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 17 of 53

204 V. Company Profiles

The following companies were contacted, interviewed and researched for this assessment. In-depth profiles for select companies are also included that identify product and pricing information at Indian retail at the time of the assessment, brief corporate information and contact information (as available) for the product buyer at each company:

- Big Basket - Max Foods Inc. - Vriddhi Speciality Foods Pvt Ltd (VSFL) - Bajoria Foods - Delta Nutritives - Chenab Impex - Nuts 'n' Spices - MRK Foods - Rovin Impex - METRO Cash & Carry - Future Group - Godrej Nature’s Basket - Suresh Kumar & Co. (Impex) Pvt. Ltd - LCOMPS - V.S. Logistics - FieldFresh Foods Private Limited - Neo Foods - Tajir Private Limited - KSMD Impex Pvt. Ltd - BMS Enterprises - Supreme Enterprises - Magsons Goa - Aditya Birla Retail - Cargill - Jivo Wellness - Brown Tree - Dalmiya Group - Sunbeam Merchantile - Tan Business Venture - Amma Nanna - Spencers - Neo Foods - Magson Gujarat - Purple Seagull - Pluss Advanced Technologies - L-Comps

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 18 of 53

205 About the Company: • Max Foods came into existence in 1997 after Mr. Amit Lohani finished his MBA from the University Of Queensland, Australia. He ventured into the Food foray with the help of his brother Mr. Vinod Lohani. • The company caters to Export markets in Caribbean Islands and Africa for Rice , Juices and edible Oil products.. • Max Foods is the premier Importer, Exporters and Marketer of globally renowned food and beverages in the Indian sub-continent

Distribution Network: • Company has a sales force of 18 sales persons, 52 distributors and 42 wholesalers. • Distribution network includes 13 states, 2 union territories. • The company has coverage of more than 10000 retail outlets with supermarkets like Reliance Fresh, Spencer’s, Big Bazaar, Big Apple etc. We also cater to Hotel chains like Leela, Sheraton group, ITC group, Nikko metropolitan, Hyatt group , Braista Coffee etc.

Services: Offers solutions in the areas of logistics and supply chain management, product launch and promotional strategies, consumer behaviour analysis, marketing research and information system etc. The company has been in this Business for the past 18 Years. It’s a family run Enterprise.

Brands:

Contact Details: Mr. AMIT LOHANI Cell :+91 98111 58889 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.maxfoods.in/home

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 19 of 53

206

About the Company: • With over 18,000 products and more than 1000 brands, bigbasket.com (Innovative Retail Concepts Private Limited) is India’s largest online food and grocery store. • Right from fresh Fruits and Vegetables, Rice and Dals, Spices and Seasonings to Packaged products, Beverages, Personal care products, Meats , the company caters all the requirements of the customers.

Distribution Network/Cities Served: • Bangalore, Hyderabad, Mumbai, Pune, Chennai, Delhi, Mysore, Coimbatore, Vijayawada-Guntur, Kolkata,Ahmedabad-Gandhinagar, Lucknow-Kanpur, Gurgaon, Vadodara, Visakhapatnam, Surat, Nagpur, Patna, Indore, Chandigarh Tricity, Jaipur, Noida

Popular Brands:

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 20 of 53

207

Olive Brands Portfolio:

Leonardo Olives Abbies Olives Pimiento Stuffed, Green Plain, 450 gm- INR. 325/- 450 gm - INR. 160/-

Olicoop Olives - Plain Green, 450 gm Jar – INR. Fragata Olives 180/- Sliced Black, 440 gm Bottle – Olicoop Olives - INR. 225 /- Black (Whole), 450 gm Jar – INR. 180/-

Solemio Olives Heracles Stuffed Pimento, Olives Pitted - Green, 450 gm Bottle - 220 gm – INR. 220/- INR. 175/-

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 21 of 53

208

Olive Brands Portfolio:

Luxeapers Olives Tabasco Spanish Olives Black Slice, Pickles, Cocktail, 440 gm Bottle – INR. 160/- 340 gm – INR. 269/-

Hutesa Spanish Olives Serpis Indian Olives Pitted Black, Stuffed With Masala, 450 gm – INR. 220/- 235 gm – INR. 199/-

Olea Europaea American Garden Olives Green Olives - Whole, Whole - Black, 350 gm – INR. 450/- 450 gm – INR. 199/-

Neo foods Olives Contact Details: Black, Pitted, Mr. Vishal Das 220 gm INR. 120/- https://www.bigbasket.com/?nc=logo

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 22 of 53

209 About the Company: • Vriddhi Speciality Foods Pvt Ltd (VSFL) was founded in 2001 as a family owned company. • For more than 60 years, VSFL directors have been exporting and importing food & beverages for retail & institutional use. • Company has excellent association with all the major retail chains and have been a preferred vendor to major supermarkets such as Metro Cash & Carry, Big Bazaar, Aditya Birla More, Reliance, Bharti Wal-Mart, and Le Marche etc.

Distribution Network: • Distribution network comprises of more than 400 clients in food service (hotels, restaurants, bakery, pastry, coffee chains, catering and airlines), as well as, 500 retailers (hypermarkets, supermarkets, gourmet stores and airports). Contact Details: Mr. Uday Chugh Cell :+91 9810016424 Email: [email protected] Product Profile: Website: http://www.vriddhigroup.in/index.html

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 23 of 53

210

About the Company: • Bajoria Foods is one of India’s fastest growing FMCG distribution and marketing company specializing in international food, health and personal care products. • Company provide multi-channel distribution and brand development services for brands in grocery stores, modern trade, pharmacy, departmental stores, Ho.Re.Ca and online stores.

Distribution Network: • Company owned office & warehouse in Mumbai and New Delhi. • Distribution network with 131 distributors and sub-distributors. • Pan India presence covering 65 cities across India. • Covering General Trade, Modern Trade, Departmental Stores, Convenience Stores, Whole Sale, Food Service, On Line Retail, Pharmacy and Institutions.

Brand Partners:

AMERICAN GARDEN U.S.A.

MONINI OLIVE OIL Contact Details: Mr. Sanjey Bajoria Cell: +91 22 2636 7100 / 200 / 300 Email: [email protected] CHABAA http://www.bajoriafoods.com/index.html#aboutus

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 24 of 53

211 About the Company: • Delta Nutritives has emerged as an international group that develops, produces and supplies food ingredients to Chocolatiers, Bakers, Confectioners, Ice cream producers. • Delta Nutritives is a company devoted in evolving the Dessert & Confectionery business in India & around. • The company source, develop & produce some of the finest Ingredients & Machinery for the Dessert trade.

Product Range: • Chocolates, Praline Fillings, Pie Fillings and Glazes, Ice Cream Flavours, Stabilizers, Ice cream Ingredients, Toppings and Decorations, Frozen Fruits and Purees, Bakery Mixes

Contact Details: Mr. Rajesh Shangavi Cell: +91 22 24195100/ 2415 1094 / 2417 1096 Email: [email protected] Website: http://deltanutritives.com/

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 25 of 53

212

About the Company: • Chenab Impex started imports of fine foods in 2002 and distribute the finest food brands from Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Mexico, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, UK and USA, mainly for Mediterranean cuisine • Leading importer of processed food products in India, and represent over 27 Top International food brands, as their exclusive agents for the Indian subcontinent.

Distribution Network: • Chenab is the Sole Representative, Importer & Distributor for the World leaders in their respective food products. Each of these Companies is a well - established business and a World Leader in their product range. • Chenab commenced their business with olives Lindsay - the World's largest olives company and have added many more brands; each brand, a World Leader in its food category. • Products are marketed and sold through leading supermarkets such as Foodworld, Foodhall, Hypercity, Nature’s Basket, Nuts n Spices, Spencer’s, Trent’s Hypermarket, Westside etc. • Suppliers to leading hotels like Taj Group, Oberoi Group, Hyatt Group, ITC Welcomegroup, Mariott Group, Leela Group Mumbai, Le Marche - New Delhi and fine dining restaurants like Sancho's, Indigo, Olive Bar, Saltwatergrill & many more all over India.

Marketing Activities • Events & Promotions conducted FY17: a) Spanish meat experience at The Grand Hyatt, Mumbai - Spanish Pork and Cocktails. b) Annapoorna World of food India – 2017 c) Tastes of Britain organised by Hypercity - Mumbai, New Delhi & Hyderabad. d) New Delhi Palate fest 2017 e) India Food Forum 2017, Mumbai

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 26 of 53

213

Major Clients

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 27 of 53

214

Major Clients

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 28 of 53

215 Olive Brands Portfolio:

Spanish Manzanilla Olives Stuffed with Pimiento Organic Whole Kalamata Olives Spanish Queen Olives Stuffed with Pimiento Spanish Queen Olives Stuffed with Almonds Spanish Queen Olives Stuffed with Garlic

Green Olives in Brine Jumbo Whole Kalamata Olives Contact: J1A, Ansa Ind. Estate, Saki Vihar Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400 072, Maharashtra, India Email: [email protected] Website: http://chenabimpex.com/

Director: Mr. Anil Chandhok Cell : +91- 98201 47479 , 91-22-2847 8880

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 29 of 53

216

About the Company: • With over three generations of experience in business, Nuts 'n' Spices was founded on the 16th of June 1999. • In order to cater to internet shoppers, Nuts 'n' Spices have started e- commerce portal, through which customers can buy all their favourite Nuts ‘n’ Spices products and get it delivered to their home.

Distribution Network: • The Company have 29 outlets across the city of Chennai and 1 in Coimbatore and have established a wide reputation for exceptional range of consumable products.

Product Range:

Contact Details: Mr. Sunil Kumar Cell: +91- 44- 2834 1240, 4212 3640 Website: http://nutsnspices.in/index.php?route=common/home

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 30 of 53

217

About the Company: • MRK Foods is performing into Indian market since 1997, imports many branded food stuffs & supply them to many prestigious institutions, ship stores & modern trade all over India

Distribution Network: • MRK Foods has 7 major offices in India at Mumbai, Hyderabad, Delhi, Pune, Chennai , Bangalore & Goa that supports operations. • Specialized in Institutional Supply all over India & in the good books of almost 80% of Five Star Hotels in Mumbai & 75% all over India except Mumbai.

Marketing Activities • Exhibited in Aahar 2017 • Freshos Promotion at US Consulate

Services: • Offers a comprehensive service, individually tailored to our customer’s needs • Source distributors through staff in the required area countrywide. • Regular reporting, price surveys, photographs, Logistics, management or sales, MRK Foods can provide complete & tailored service. • Having CPC contracts with Taj Group of Hotels, Marriott, ISTA, Oberoi, Mainland China & many others.

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 31 of 53

218

Olive Brands Portfolio:

Contact: 1, Ground Floor, Vijay House, Devi Dayal Compound, Bhandup (W), Mumbai - 400 078 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.mrkfoods.in/brands.php

Director: Mr. DHIRAJ DAMA Phone: +91-22-66479999 / 25943580

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 32 of 53

219

About the Company: • METRO Cash & Carry is represented in 25 countries with over 750 self-service wholesale stores, the wholesale company achieved sales of around €29 billion in financial year 2015/16. • METRO Cash & Carry is part of the METRO AG Wholesale & Food Specialist Company. The METRO AG Wholesale & Food Specialist Company (W&FS Co.) is an internationally leading specialist in wholesale and food retail. • METRO Cash & Carry India offers close to 7,000 world-class products across a multitude of categories - such as fruits & vegetables, general grocery, dairy, frozen & bakery products, fish & meat, confectionery, detergents & cleaning supplies, health & beauty products, media & electronics, household goods and apparel - all under one roof, and at transparent, low wholesale prices.

Distribution Network: • METRO Cash & Carry currently has twenty-three operational wholesale centres – six in Bangalore, three in Hyderabad, two each in Mumbai and Delhi, and one each in Kolkata, Ludhiana, Jalandhar, Zirakpur, Amritsar, Lucknow, Vijayawada, Indore, Jaipur and Surat. • METRO Cash & Carry India’s core customers include small retailers and kirana stores, hotels, restaurants and caterers (HoReCa), corporates, SMEs, all types of offices, companies and institutions, as well as self-employed professionals.

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 33 of 53

220

Product Range

Contact : METRO Cash and Carry India Private Limited Address of the Registered office: 26/3, Industrial Suburbs, 'A' Block, Subramanyanagar, Ward No.9, Bangalore 560055. INDIA Telephone Number: 1860-266-2010 Email: [email protected]

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 34 of 53

221

About the Company: • Future Group brings multiple products, opportunities and services to millions of customers in India. Through more than over 17 million square feet of retail space, serves customers in more than 240 cities across the country. • 300 million customers walk into future group stores each year and choose products and services supplied by over 30,000 small, medium and large entrepreneurs and manufacturers from across India

Distribution Network: • Future Retail Limited focuses on the hypermarket & supermarket business led by formats like Big Bazaar, Easyday, Food Bazaar, KB’s Conveniently Yours, fbb, Foodhall, HomeTown & Ezone. The hypermarket chain, Big Bazaar is ranked amongst the top 3 service brands in the country by The Nielsen Company. • Future Consumer Ltd is group's integrated food company with Food & FMCG brands & retail formats like & Aadhar. It also has interest in Food Parks.

Contact: FUTURE CONSUMER LIMITED Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar, Off Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai – 400 060, Maharashtra, India Phone : +91 22 6119 0000 Email: [email protected] Website: http://futureconsumer.in/

Mr. Mr. Kshitij Dhedia Email: [email protected] Cell: +91 93-21-753583

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 35 of 53

222

Hypermarkets & Home Retailing

Integrated Food & FMCG Company

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 36 of 53

223 About the Company: • Godrej Nature’s Basket is India’s pioneering and premium food destination from the 119-year young Godrej Group. Started in 2005 as a single store in Mumbai has now transformed itself into an omni-channel retail business. • Presently through physical retail stores across India in neighbourhoods, this combined with an online portal and a mobile application.

Distribution Network: • Deliveries within City Limits for cities: Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Pune.

Olive Brands Portfolio:

Fragata Dolce Sliced Green Olives Organic Whole Olives 450 g – INR. 202.50/- 210 g – INR. 395/-

Olicoop Tify Black Sliced Olives Olives Jalapeno Stuffed 450 g – INR. 180/- 350 g – INR. 160/-

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 37 of 53

224

Olive Brands Portfolio:

Olea Europaea Hand Stuffed Olives with Onions 350 g – INR. 610/-

Contact: Natures Basket Ltd. Godrej One, 3rd Floor, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (East) , Eastern Express Highway, Mumbai - 400 079 Fax: +91-22-2519-7240 Phone: +91-22-2519-7788 Email us at: [email protected]

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 38 of 53

225

About the Company: • Suresh Kumar & Co. (Impex) Pvt. Ltd is an old family business with 4th generation involved in the operations. The company came into existence as exporter of Rice & Indian Mushrooms to Europe & USA. • Leading importer of processed food products in India, and represent over 27 Top International food brands, as their exclusive agents for the Indian sub-continent.

Distribution Network: • 105 sub-distributors located in 25 states & 60 cities across the nation. • Retail reach in over 110 cities & over 10000 retail outlets • Direct relationship with MNC Hypermarkets, Chain Stores & Institutions

Marketing Activities • Exhibitions, Sample Tasting Activities, Special Displays, Talk shows, Live Cooking Shows, Promotional Giveaways

Brands Portfolio: Portfolio of Brands includes Pasta, Olives, Olive Oil, Pasta Sauce, Peanut Butter, Jam, Dressings, Herbs, Oriental Sauces, Japanese Food, Tofu, Coconut Milk, Canned Meat and Sea Food, Canned Vegetables, Dried Fruits, Drinks, Thai ingredients, Vinegars, etc.

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 39 of 53

226

Major Clients

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 40 of 53

227

Olive Brands Portfolio:

Contact: A-17, Sonu Tower, 2nd Floor, Dr Mukherjee Nagar Commercial Complex, New Delhi - 110009, India Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.skco.in

Directors: Mr. Nikhil Asrani and Mr. Aseem Asrani Cell: +91-98995 59829

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 41 of 53

228

About the Company: • LCOMPS founded in 1998, Part of Prabha Group of Companies established in 1963 having diversified businesses i.e Manufacturing, Hotels & Restaurants and Import & Distribution of Food & Beverage products.

Distribution Network: • One of the leading Import & Distribution Company in India today., highly efficient and extensive distribution network across India ensures our reach to more than 10,000 retailers, hotels & food service outlets. • Exclusive partners for some of the some of the world’s leading food & beverage brands like Ceres, Pascual, Hero, Pasta Zara, General Mills, Shan, Emmi, President, Dcoop, May , Master Rice

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 42 of 53

229

Brand Portfolio

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 43 of 53

230

Olive Brands Portfolio:

Contact: # 182/63, Industrial Area, Phase-I,Chandigarh - 160 002 (INDIA) Email: [email protected] Website: http://lcomps.com

Director: Mr. Punnet Gupta Cell:+91-9316030904, 2650026, 2640573

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 44 of 53

231

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 form the year 2005.

Distribution Network: • V.S. Logistics is a part of the distribution channel of the FMCG Distribution. Distribution channel is defined as a chain of 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 CnF, Super Stockiest of FMCG products for Maharashtra with wide network of distributors. The firm covers a wide range of products which are distributed throughout the state.

Marketing Activities V. S. Logistics is a leading CnF, Super Stockist of FMCG products for Mumbai, Maharashtra with wide network of distributors.

Major Clients • Aditya Birla Retail Ltd. • Homecare Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. • Bharti Wal-Mart Pvt. Ltd. • Booker India Pvt. Ltd. • Avenue Supermarts Ltd. – D’mart • Future Consumer Enterprises Ltd. • Future Value Retail Ltd. • GROFERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. • Apana Bazaar • Metro Cash & Carry • Hypercity Retail (India) Ltd. • Snap Deal • Nature’s Basket Limited • Paytm • Reliance Fresh Ltd. • Flipkart • Tesco Hindustan Wholesaling Pvt. Ltd. • Lovely life style

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 45 of 53

232 Olive Brands Portfolio:

Contact: 114, R.C.C. Bldg. No.1, 1st Floor, Arihant Compound, Kopar Bus Stop, Thane-Bhiwandi Road, Bhiwandi - 421 302. Email: [email protected], Website: http://vslogistics.in/

Director: Mr. Mihir Mehta Cell: +91-98200 58805

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 46 of 53

233

About the Company: • FieldFresh Foods Private Limited is a joint venture between Bharti Enterprises & Del Monte Pacific Limited. With a vision of “creating delightful food experiences,” FieldFresh Foods offers a range of food and beverage products under the Del Monte brand in India .

Distribution Network: • FieldFresh Foods engages with over 5000 partner farmers across 8500 acres in Punjab & Maharashtra who are GlobalGAP compliant and grow vegetables for export to Europe. This has enabled FieldFresh Foods to become the largest Indian exporter of fresh baby corn with a 35% share of the UK retail market. • FieldFresh Foods is also growing and exporting fresh sweet corn, chillies, herbs, sugar snaps & snow peas. • This state-of-the-art facility manufactures a range of Fruit Drinks, Sauces, Dips, Dressings and Condiments. • Del Monte serves all international QSRs like Domino's, Pizza Hut, KFC, Subway, McDonalds, Burger King etc in India besides being a preferred supplier to the Food Service channel and being available to consumers across the top 70 cities in nearly 50,000 top modern trade and general trade outlets.

Marketing Activities Bharti Enterprises is one of India's leading business groups with interests in telecom, agribusiness, financial services, retail and manufacturing.

Del Monte Pacific Limited is listed in the Singapore Stock Exchange and holds a group of companies that cater to today's consumer needs for premium quality, healthy food and beverage products. The Del Monte Pacific Group has exclusive rights to the Del Monte brand for processed food and beverage products in the Indian subcontinent and in the Philippines where it enjoys leading market shares for canned pineapple juice and juice drinks, canned pineapple and tropical mixed fruits, tomato sauce, spaghetti sauce and tomato ketchup.

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 47 of 53

234

Olive Brands Portfolio:

Contact: FieldFresh Foods Pvt Ltd (A Bharti Enterprise) Tower C-2, First Floor, Plot No 16, Udyog Vihar Phase IV, Gurgaon - 122 015 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.fieldfreshfoods.in/

Director: Mr. Yogesh Bellani Phone: + 91-124 410 9400

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 48 of 53

235

About the Company: • Neo Foods is promoted and supported by the Jalan Group of Companies and has seen an average growth of more than 20% per year. • Neo Foods is specialized in pickled and preserved vegetables and fruits grown under contract farming. • Neo Foods does contract farming of vegetables spread over South India in the 3 states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.

Distribution Network: • QSR (Quick Service Restaurants) vertical supplies to almost all the Indian and international QSR chains. • Associated with different distributors across India who caters Hotel and Restaurant

Olive Brands Portfolio:

Contact: Niton, E- Block, Ground Floor, 11 Palace Road, Bangalore-560052, India Email: [email protected] Website: http://neofoods.co.in/ Mr. S.M Prakash , VP –Operations Cell: +91-9591994625 , +91-80-30164500

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 49 of 53

236 Major Clients

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 50 of 53

237

About the Company: • Tajir Private Limited was established in Mumbai in 1950, a market leader of imported food products and ingredients in India.

Distribution Network: • Distribution spans across Industries, Hotel, Restaurants & Catering (HORECA) and the retail business in India.

Marketing Activities • Exhibited in Aahar 2016

Olive Brands Portfolio:

Contact: Adie Mansion, 334 M S Road, Mumbai 400007, INDIA Phone : +91 (22) 2301 0446 Mr. Karthik – Manager West Mumbai Zone Cell: +91-9699838158 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.tajir.com/frontend/web/index/

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 51 of 53

238

About the Company: • Exporter and supplier of oils, fmcg goods, soap, bath soap, olive, olive oil, pickles, lemon pickles in India.

Distribution Network: • Distribution spans across Industries, Hotel, Restaurants & Catering (HORECA) and the retail business in India.

Olive Brands Portfolio:

Contact: The Capital Building, A-608,Plot No.70/G, Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC), Bandra (E), Mumbai:-400051 Phone: +91-22-40032434 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.heracles.in/

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 52 of 53

239 About the Company: • BMS Enterprises, based in Delhi, was established in 1998 as the importers of Spring Roll Pastry from Tee Yih Jia Manufacturing Pte. Ltd., Singapore. • BMS, through its sister concern, under the brand name 'Delish' by The Connoisseurs, ventured into manufacturing of snacks such as spring rolls, corn cheese triangles, money bags, cheese balls, seekh kebabs, chicken satye, fish satye and hara bhara kebabs, etc. These products were highly preferred by the modern trade, major super markets, fast food chains, and HORECA. Distribution Network: • BMS Enterprises has offices in Delhi, Noida, Gurgaon, Mumbai, Australia, Singapore, with its distributors spread all over the country.

Marketing Activities • Having proved its dominance in the frozen food industry, BMS launched another product— the Basa Fish Fillets, which are imported from Vietnam. This brought a near revolution in the Indian hospitality industry. Basa Fish Fillets became so popular that Chefs preferred them even over Indian fish varieties. • The company has recently introduced Australian Lamb into its portfolio. BMS is now importing the Lamb Rack-Cap on, Cap off, Lamb Legs and whole Carcass. These products are specialties for multiple cuisines, and are well accepted by the Chefs.

Brands Portfolio:

Contact: B-48, Sector 88,Noida UP 201301 INDIA Email: [email protected] Phone : +91-120-4256446, 4211405

Director: Mr. Sudhanshu Mathur, Cell: +91-98100 82943

India Market Assessment for California Olive Committee Page 53 of 53

240 Asia Fruit Logistica Summary

In 2018, the COC was pleased to have the opportunity to co-exhibit with the California Blueberry Commission (CBC) at the Asia Fruit Logistica Trade Show in Hong Kong. Asia Fruit Logistica is the only annual exhibition for fresh fruit and vegetable marketing in Asia, which focuses exclusively on the fresh produce sector and related value chain for the whole Asian region. The COC has conducted market assessment and promotional activities in Japan, SE Asia, and China, and felt that exhibiting at Asia Fruit Logistica provided a prime opportunity to gain additional exposure to key industry members in these markets. In 2018, Asia Fruit Logistica attracted nearly 14,000 trade visitors, 64% of which are based in Asia. Furthermore, 89% of these visitors were identified as closely involved in the purchasing and procuring decision-making process within their company. This tradeshow an excellent opportunity for the COC to gain key industry contacts who will likely assist in future business opportunities for California olive expansion to various Asian markets.

As part of the trade show promotional materials, the COC handed out samples of the Freida’s California Olive Martini and “Olive You Berry Much” pins developed in conjunction with the CBC.

241

STATISTICS

243 SHIPMENTS, PACK, AND ENDING INVENTORY SUMMARY 2016-17 TO 2017-18 (Converted cases 24/300 basis)

SHIPMENTS PACK ENDING INVENTORY

2017-18 2016-17 % Chnge 2017-18 2016-17 % Chnge 2017-18 2016-17 % Chnge

TOTAL 11,617,820 11,809,688 -1.6 11,519,432 11,930,073 -3.4 6,645,085 6,795,403 -2.2

MARKETS

Consumer 8,743,664 9,006,143 -2.9 8,758,984 8,819,185 -0.7 5,130,422 5,223,995 -1.8

Food Service 2,874,156 2,803,545 2.5 2,760,448 3,110,888 -11.3 1,514,663 1,571,408 -3.6

STYLES

Whole 7,464 8,027 -7.0 2,769 17,035 -83.7 15,694 22,612 -30.6

Pitted 7,061,181 7,263,241 -2.8 7,076,125 7,333,232 -3.5 4,664,827 4,731,787 -1.4

Wedged 33,757 26,739 26.2 40,806 48,961 -16.7 35,366 42,294 -16.4

Sliced 4,259,197 4,222,763 0.9 4,187,386 4,323,940 -3.2 1,818,280 1,879,992 -3.3

Chopped 231,397 261,109 -11.4 208,577 200,395 4.1 99,060 96,059 3.1

Broken Pitted 24,824 27,809 -10.7 3,769 2,385 58.0 11,859 22,660 -47.7

KEY ITEMS

24/300 Pitted 6,714,324 6,922,293 -3.0 6,824,349 6,834,739 -0.2 4,322,586 4,326,491 -0.1

6/10 Pitted 329,786 325,443 1.3 244,166 482,736 -49.4 326,861 380,614 -14.1

6/10 Sliced 2,463,559 2,427,898 1.5 2,443,837 2,552,039 -4.2 1,107,049 1,119,837 -1.1

24/300 Whole 5,718 6,307 -9.3 2,769 4,810 -42.4 12,296 17,370 -29.2

6/10 Whole 1,746 1,720 1.5 0 5,733 -100.0 3,398 5,242 -35.2

6/10 Wedged 32,182 25,361 26.9 40,806 45,325 -10.0 33,601 38,970 -13.8

2.25 Sliced 665,368 700,002 -4.9 578,312 715,090 -19.1 255,438 319,145 -20.0

4.25 Chopped 179,561 157,924 13.7 165,487 147,182 12.4 44,708 66,491 -32.8

SOURCE: COC/NASS * N/A IS DO TO 0 PACKOUT IN 2010-11. SHIPMENTS, PACK, AND ENDING INVENTORY SUMMARY 2016-17 TO 2017-18 (Converted cases 24/300 basis)

SHIPMENTS PACK ENDING INVENTORY

2017-18 2016-17 % Chnge 2017-18 2016-17 % Chnge 2017-18 2016-17 % Chnge

TOTAL 11,617,820 11,809,688 -1.6 11,519,432 11,930,073 -3.4 6,645,085 6,795,403 -2.2

MARKETS

Consumer 8,743,664 9,006,143 -2.9 8,758,984 8,819,185 -0.7 5,130,422 5,223,995 -1.8

Food Service 2,874,156 2,803,545 2.5 2,760,448 3,110,888 -11.3 1,514,663 1,571,408 -3.6

STYLES

Whole 7,464 8,027 -7.0 2,769 17,035 -83.7 15,694 22,612 -30.6

Pitted 7,061,181 7,263,241 -2.8 7,076,125 7,333,232 -3.5 4,664,827 4,731,787 -1.4

Wedged 33,757 26,739 26.2 40,806 48,961 -16.7 35,366 42,294 -16.4

Sliced 4,259,197 4,222,763 0.9 4,187,386 4,323,940 -3.2 1,818,280 1,879,992 -3.3

Chopped 231,397 261,109 -11.4 208,577 200,395 4.1 99,060 96,059 3.1

Broken Pitted 24,824 27,809 -10.7 3,769 2,385 58.0 11,859 22,660 -47.7

KEY ITEMS

24/300 Pitted 6,714,324 6,922,293 -3.0 6,824,349 6,834,739 -0.2 4,322,586 4,326,491 -0.1

6/10 Pitted 329,786 325,443 1.3 244,166 482,736 -49.4 326,861 380,614 -14.1

6/10 Sliced 2,463,559 2,427,898 1.5 2,443,837 2,552,039 -4.2 1,107,049 1,119,837 -1.1

24/300 Whole 5,718 6,307 -9.3 2,769 4,810 -42.4 12,296 17,370 -29.2

6/10 Whole 1,746 1,720 1.5 0 5,733 -100.0 3,398 5,242 -35.2

6/10 Wedged 32,182 25,361 26.9 40,806 45,325 -10.0 33,601 38,970 -13.8

2.25 Sliced 665,368 700,002 -4.9 578,312 715,090 -19.1 255,438 319,145 -20.0

4.25 Chopped 179,561 157,924 13.7 165,487 147,182 12.4 44,708 66,491 -32.8

SOURCE: COC/NASS * N/A IS DO TO 0 PACKOUT IN 2010-11.

245 PACK, SHIPMENTS & ENDING INVENTORY - ALL STYLES 2 PACK, SHIPMENTS, AND CARRY OUT CANNED RIPE & GREEN RIPE - WHOLE & PITTED BROKEN PITTED - LIMITED 2008-09 TO 2017-18 (Thousands of cases 24/300 basis)

PACK, SHIPMENTS & ENDING INVENTORY - ALL STYLES CARRY IN CARRY OUT SEASON PACK SHIPMENTS 18,000 INVENTORY STORAGE INVENTORY STORAGE 16,000 2008-09 5,845.6 4,270.2 14,153.2 13,581.0 6,272.7 757.4 14,000 12,000 2009-10 6,272.7 757.4 11,432.4 13,147.0 4,506.8 916.5 10,000 2010-11 4,506.8 916.5 16,350.6 13,072.7 7,474.2 12,322.0 8,000 6,000 2011-12 7,474.2 12,322.0 14,851.6 13,711.7 8,466.9 1,536.7

CONVERTED CASES 4,000 2012-13 8,466.9 1,536.7 13,353.0 13,229.1 8,592.3 2,431.7 2,000 0 FOOD SERVICE SLICED SHIPMENTS - % BY MONTH 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

PACK SHIPMENTS ENDING INVENTORY & RAW STORAGE 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

2017-18 6,795.4 3,727.3 11,519.4 11,617.8 6,645.1 6,467.3

STORAGE CONVERTED AT 155 CASES PER TON. NOTE: INVENTORY IS FINISHED GOODS; STORAGE IS BULK OLIVES. SOURCE: COC/NASS

246 PACK, SHIPMENTS, AND CARRY OUT CANNED RIPE & GREEN RIPE - WHOLE & PITTED BROKEN PITTED - LIMITED 2008-09 TO 2017-18 (Thousands of cases 24/300 basis)

CARRY IN CARRY OUT SEASON PACK SHIPMENTS INVENTORY STORAGE INVENTORY STORAGE

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

2017-18 6,795.4 3,727.3 11,519.4 11,617.8 6,645.1 6,467.3

STORAGE CONVERTED AT 155 CASES PER TON. NOTE: INVENTORY IS FINISHED GOODS; STORAGE IS BULK OLIVES. SOURCE: COC/NASS

247 PACK, SHIPMENTS & ENDING1 INVENTORY - PITTED PACK, SHIPMENTS, AND ENDING INVENTORY CANNED RIPE OLIVES - PITTED 2008-09 TO 2017-18 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis)

BEGINNING ENDING SEASON PACK SHIPMENTS PACK, SHIPMENTS & ENDING INVENTORY - PITTED INVENTORY INVENTORY 12,000 2008-09 4,143.8 8,794.1 8,604.7 4,275.0 10,000

8,000 2009-10 4,275.0 6,834.9 8,356.3 2,734.3

6,000 2010-11 2,734.3 10,473.4 8,381.4 4,795.2 4,000 2011-12 4,795.2 8,825.7 8,544.4 4,996.0 CONVERTED CASES 2,000

0 2012-13 4,966.0 9,720.2 8,235.7 6,409.6

FOOD SERVICE SLICED SHIPMENTS - % BY MONTH 2013-14 6,409.6 8,922.8 8,294.6 6,952.6 PACK SHIPMENTS ENDING INVENTORY 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

2017-18 4,731.8 7,076.1 7,061.1 4,664.8

INCLUDES GREEN RIPE SOURCE: COC/NASS

248 PACK, SHIPMENTS, AND ENDING INVENTORY CANNED RIPE OLIVES - PITTED 2008-09 TO 2017-18 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis)

BEGINNING ENDING SEASON PACK SHIPMENTS INVENTORY INVENTORY

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

2017-18 4,731.8 7,076.1 7,061.1 4,664.8

INCLUDES GREEN RIPE SOURCE: COC/NASS

249 PACK, SHIPMENTS & ENDING INVENTORY - SLICED PACK, SHIPMENTS AND ENDING INVENTORY CANNED RIPE OLIVES WHOLE - BROKEN PITTED - LIMITED 2013-14 TO 2017-18 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis)

BEGINNING ENDING STYLE SEASON PACK SHIPMENTS INVENTORY INVENTORY

2013-14 26.7 19.9 12.1 20.7 2014-15 20.7 181.2 11.9 18.1 WHOLE* 2015-16 18.1 114.8 12.5 19.1 2016-17 19.1 17.0 8.0 22.6 2017-18 22.6 2.8 7.5 15.7 2013-14 65.2 0.4 27.3 37.9 2014-15 37.9 13.1 27.1 23.5 FOOD SERVICE SLICED SHIPMENTS - % BY MONTH BROKEN PITTED* 2015-16 23.5 20.8 24.6 18.9 2016-17 18.9 2.4 27.8 22.7 2017-18 22.7 3.8 24.8 11.8 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 2017-18 42.3 40.8 33.8 35.4 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 2017-18 1,880.0 4,187.4 4,259.2 1,818.3 2013-14 273.0 265.0 296.0 231.3 2014-15 231.3 185.0 275.6 175.9 CHOPPED 2015-16 175.9 161.1 250.7 136.1 2016-17 136.1 200.4 261.1 96.1 2017-18 96.1 208.6 231.4 99.1

* INCLUDES GREEN RIPE ** INCLUDES SMALL AMOUNT OF HALVED SOURCE: COC/NASS

250 PACK, SHIPMENTS AND ENDING INVENTORY CANNED RIPE OLIVES WHOLE - BROKEN PITTED - LIMITED 2013-14 TO 2017-18 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis)

BEGINNING ENDING STYLE SEASON PACK SHIPMENTS INVENTORY INVENTORY

2013-14 26.7 19.9 12.1 20.7 2014-15 20.7 181.2 11.9 18.1 WHOLE* 2015-16 18.1 114.8 12.5 19.1 2016-17 19.1 17.0 8.0 22.6 2017-18 22.6 2.8 7.5 15.7 2013-14 65.2 0.4 27.3 37.9 2014-15 37.9 13.1 27.1 23.5 BROKEN PITTED* 2015-16 23.5 20.8 24.6 18.9 2016-17 18.9 2.4 27.8 22.7 2017-18 22.7 3.8 24.8 11.8 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 2017-18 42.3 40.8 33.8 35.4 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 2017-18 1,880.0 4,187.4 4,259.2 1,818.3 2013-14 273.0 265.0 296.0 231.3 2014-15 231.3 185.0 275.6 175.9 CHOPPED 2015-16 175.9 161.1 250.7 136.1 2016-17 136.1 200.4 261.1 96.1 2017-18 96.1 208.6 231.4 99.1

* INCLUDES GREEN RIPE ** INCLUDES SMALL AMOUNT OF HALVED SOURCE: COC/NASS

251 CONSUMER SHIPMENTS - % BY MONTH 8 SHIPMENTS BY MONTH CANNED RIPE & GREEN RIPE - WHOLE & PITTED CONSUMER SHIPMENTS - % BY MONTH 2008-09 TO 2017-18 15% (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis) 13%

11% MONTH 2008- 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 8 9% AUGUST 693.2 620.1 610.1 637.7 583.8 567.9 618.7 556.0 587.7 569.2 7% CONSUMER SHIPMENTS - % BY MONTH SEPTEMBER 825.8 724.1 723.1 722.8 642.1 652 664.3 709.7 548.7 508.1 5% 15% OCTOBER 925.6 982.0 947.5 962.5 896.9 835.4 853.2 797.2 670.6 720.0 3% 13% NOVEMBER 1,125.9 970.0 1,083.0 1,091.8 1,102.5 997.3 924 908.8 791.9 907.7 11% 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 . DECEMBER 809.8 797.1 700.7 814.4 712.4 819.4 995.5 827.0 782.7 653.3 9% JANUARY 428.8 447.8 493.9 485.3 535.3 518.7 494.4 435.0 436.2 439.7 7%

5% FOOD SERVICE SHIPMENTS - % BY MONTH FEBRUARY 487.3 431.8 413.3 463.9 422.8 435 433.2 496.4 395.1 356.6 15% 3% 13% MARCH 671.7 718.1 679.5 656.7 632.9 652.3 638.1 578.7 615.2 574.0

11% 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 APRIL 559.2 533.7 672.8 625.2 602.3 656.3 541.3 545.4 552.4 457.3 FOOD SERVICE SHIPMENTS. - % BY MONTH 9% MAY 635.9 671.7 605.7 632.7 641.7 643.4 599.5 593.5 573.3 545.9 7% JUNE 795.6 773.7 790.1 764.1 742.0 771.3 733 720.3 653.0 656.5 5% FOOD SERVICE SHIPMENTS - % BY MONTH 15% JULY 608.0 628.5 600.4 598.1 575.0 587.2 543.2 597.3 519.1 556.2 3% 13% TOTAL 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 6,944.5 11% 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 GREEN-W/PTD 54.4 75.7 85.3 102.8 158.3 170.4 172.8 162.4 145.3 124.1 9%

7% TOTALS 8,621.2 8,374.3 8,405.4 8,558.0 8,248.0 8,306.6 8,211.2 7,927.7 7,271.2 7,068.6

5% SOURCE: COC/NASS

3% Source: COC/NASS

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Source: COC/NASS

252 SHIPMENTS BY MONTH CANNED RIPE & GREEN RIPE - WHOLE & PITTED 2008-09 TO 2017-18 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis)

MONTH 2008- 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 AUGUST 693.2 620.1 610.1 637.7 583.8 567.9 618.7 556.0 587.7 569.2 SEPTEMBER 825.8 724.1 723.1 722.8 642.1 652 664.3 709.7 548.7 508.1 OCTOBER 925.6 982.0 947.5 962.5 896.9 835.4 853.2 797.2 670.6 720.0 NOVEMBER 1,125.9 970.0 1,083.0 1,091.8 1,102.5 997.3 924 908.8 791.9 907.7 DECEMBER 809.8 797.1 700.7 814.4 712.4 819.4 995.5 827.0 782.7 653.3 JANUARY 428.8 447.8 493.9 485.3 535.3 518.7 494.4 435.0 436.2 439.7 FEBRUARY 487.3 431.8 413.3 463.9 422.8 435 433.2 496.4 395.1 356.6 MARCH 671.7 718.1 679.5 656.7 632.9 652.3 638.1 578.7 615.2 574.0 APRIL 559.2 533.7 672.8 625.2 602.3 656.3 541.3 545.4 552.4 457.3 MAY 635.9 671.7 605.7 632.7 641.7 643.4 599.5 593.5 573.3 545.9 JUNE 795.6 773.7 790.1 764.1 742.0 771.3 733 720.3 653.0 656.5 JULY 608.0 628.5 600.4 598.1 575.0 587.2 543.2 597.3 519.1 556.2 TOTAL 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 6,944.5 GREEN-W/PTD 54.4 75.7 85.3 102.8 158.3 170.4 172.8 162.4 145.3 124.1 TOTALS 8,621.2 8,374.3 8,405.4 8,558.0 8,248.0 8,306.6 8,211.2 7,927.7 7,271.2 7,068.6

SOURCE: COC/NASS

253 CONSUMER SLICED & CHOPPED SHIPMENTS - % BY MONTH 10 SHIPMENTS BY MONTH CANNED RIPE OLIVES - LIMITED STYLES * 2008-09 TO 2017-18 CONSUMER SLICED & CHOPPED SHIPMENTS - % BY MONTH 15% (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis) 13%

11% MONTH 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

9% 10 AUGUST 398.4 400.4 376.5 468.3 420.7 411.8 448.8 378.0 435.7 392.2 7% SEPTEMBER 499.9 419.1 405.6 453.6 410.6 432.7 470.6 438.0 390.1 386.5 5% CONSUMER SLICED & CHOPPED SHIPMENTS - % BY MONTH OCTOBER 401.2 422.2 390.1 408.3 439.2 401.5 430.5 376.2 330.8 377.8 15% 3% NOVEMBER 366.4 410.3 370.8 417.8 385.2 401.0 391.9 350.7 341.5 363.8 13% 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 DECEMBER 385.5 413.7 327.3 400.2 401.1 343.9 459.6 434.8 373.5 348.4 11%

9% JANUARY 352.7 331.4 358.3 420.6 423.2 400.8 390.6 303.1 337.7 350.5 15% FOODSERVICE SLICED SHIPMENTS - % BY MONTH 7% FEBRUARY 352.7 356.1 362.8 369.5 384.6 369.4 361.9 337.2 302.8 334.7 13%5% MARCH 438.1 427.4 403.1 422.8 444.0 442.7 428.7 366.2 402.2 384.6 11%3% APRIL 389.3 360.1 397.8 420.5 370.0 433.4 358.6 370.8 327.1 369.1 FOOD SERVICE SLICED SHIPMENTS - % BY MONTH 9% 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 MAY 432.5 373.9 380.4 452.1 421.1 416.8 407.1 423.9 454.7 386.6 7% JUNE 453.4 434.3 487.1 490.6 442.3 471.9 451.4 488.4 432.2 445.1 FOODSERVICE SLICED SHIPMENTS - % BY MONTH 15%5% JULY 437.6 395.1 400.1 412.0 415.6 424.9 379.8 439.2 382.3 384.9

13%3% TOTALS 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 4,524.2 *LIMITED STYLES CONSIST OF SLICED, CHOPPED AND WEDGED 11% 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 SOURCE: COC/NASS 9%

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Source: COC/NASS

Source: COC/NASS

254 SHIPMENTS BY MONTH CANNED RIPE OLIVES - LIMITED STYLES * 2008-09 TO 2017-18 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis)

MONTH 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 AUGUST 398.4 400.4 376.5 468.3 420.7 411.8 448.8 378.0 435.7 392.2 SEPTEMBER 499.9 419.1 405.6 453.6 410.6 432.7 470.6 438.0 390.1 386.5 OCTOBER 401.2 422.2 390.1 408.3 439.2 401.5 430.5 376.2 330.8 377.8 NOVEMBER 366.4 410.3 370.8 417.8 385.2 401.0 391.9 350.7 341.5 363.8 DECEMBER 385.5 413.7 327.3 400.2 401.1 343.9 459.6 434.8 373.5 348.4 JANUARY 352.7 331.4 358.3 420.6 423.2 400.8 390.6 303.1 337.7 350.5 FEBRUARY 352.7 356.1 362.8 369.5 384.6 369.4 361.9 337.2 302.8 334.7 MARCH 438.1 427.4 403.1 422.8 444.0 442.7 428.7 366.2 402.2 384.6 APRIL 389.3 360.1 397.8 420.5 370.0 433.4 358.6 370.8 327.1 369.1 MAY 432.5 373.9 380.4 452.1 421.1 416.8 407.1 423.9 454.7 386.6 JUNE 453.4 434.3 487.1 490.6 442.3 471.9 451.4 488.4 432.2 445.1 JULY 437.6 395.1 400.1 412.0 415.6 424.9 379.8 439.2 382.3 384.9 TOTALS 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 4,524.2 *LIMITED STYLES CONSIST OF SLICED, CHOPPED AND WEDGED SOURCE: COC/NASS

255 SHIPMENTS BY SIZE GRADE 12 SHIPMENTS BY SIZE GRADE

12 CANNED RIPE & GREEN RIPE - WHOLE & PITTED 2008-09 TO 2017-18 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis)

4,000 SHIPMENTS BY SIZE GRADE SIZE GRADE 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 SHIPMENTS BY SIZE GRADE 3,0004,000 SMALL 834.4 765.1 795.9 975.7 909.4 747.5 716.8 579.1 488.9 459.2

ASES 2,0003,000 MEDIUM 2,569.6 2,551.6 2,616.1 2,525.5 2,276.1 2283.1 2273.8 2,121.4 1,938.3 1,882.0

ASES 1,0002,000 LARGE 3,258.8 3,248.8 3,186.7 3,078.3 3,031.6 3293.9 3291.2 3,440.2 2,907.4 2,843.9 CONVERTED C 1,0000 EX LARGE 1,254.3 1,160.3 1,151.2 1,173.8 1,148.5 1262.1 1296.3 1,197.8 1,348.3 1,357.3

CONVERTED C 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18

0 SMALL MEDIUM LARGE EX LARGE EX LG SEV 20.3 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18

SMALL MEDIUM LARGE EX LARGE JUMBO 493.9 435.7 445.4 580.4 618.2 435.4 360 312.9 325.1 316.1 SHIPMENTS BY SIZE GRADE 1,000 COLOSSAL 110.0 92.1 85.2 93.9 94.7 102.6 90.6 108 113.8 83 SHIPMENTS BY SIZE GRADE 1,000 SUP COL 25.6 15.9 15.6 13.9 11.4 11.8 9.7 5.8 4.1 3.1

ASES 500 TOTALS 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 6,944.6 G.RP-WH/PTD 54.4 75.7 85.3 102.8 158.3 170.4 172.8 162.4 145.3 124.1 ASES 500 CONVERTED C 0 TOTALS 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 7,068.7 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18

CONVERTED C SOURCE: COC/NASS 0 08-09 09-10 10-11 JUMBO 11-12 COLOSSAL12-13 13-14 S. COLOSSAL14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18

JUMBO COLOSSAL S. COLOSSAL

Source: COC/NASS

256 SHIPMENTS BY SIZE GRADE CANNED RIPE & GREEN RIPE - WHOLE & PITTED 2008-09 TO 2017-18 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis)

SIZE GRADE 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 SMALL 834.4 765.1 795.9 975.7 909.4 747.5 716.8 579.1 488.9 459.2 MEDIUM 2,569.6 2,551.6 2,616.1 2,525.5 2,276.1 2283.1 2273.8 2,121.4 1,938.3 1,882.0 LARGE 3,258.8 3,248.8 3,186.7 3,078.3 3,031.6 3293.9 3291.2 3,440.2 2,907.4 2,843.9 EX LARGE 1,254.3 1,160.3 1,151.2 1,173.8 1,148.5 1262.1 1296.3 1,197.8 1,348.3 1,357.3 EX LG SEV 20.3 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 JUMBO 493.9 435.7 445.4 580.4 618.2 435.4 360 312.9 325.1 316.1 COLOSSAL 110.0 92.1 85.2 93.9 94.7 102.6 90.6 108 113.8 83 SUP COL 25.6 15.9 15.6 13.9 11.4 11.8 9.7 5.8 4.1 3.1 TOTALS 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 6,944.6 G.RP-WH/PTD 54.4 75.7 85.3 102.8 158.3 170.4 172.8 162.4 145.3 124.1 TOTALS 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 7,068.7 SOURCE: COC/NASS

257 SHIPMENTS BY SIZE OF CONTAINER PACK BY SIZE OF CONTAINER CANNED RIPE & GREEN RIPE - WHOLE & PITTED CANNED RIPE & GREEN RIPE - WHOLE & PITTED BROKEN PITTED - LIMITED USE STYLES BROKEN PITTED - LIMITED USE STYLES 2013-14 TO 2017-18 2013-14 TO 2017-18 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis) (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis)

CONTAINER STYLES 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 CONTAINER STYLES 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Whole 3.0 2.3 4.3 1.7 1.7 Whole 5.0 0.0 104.2 5.7 - Pitted 372.9 394.2 336.2 325.4 329.8 Pitted 373.3 186.7 389.5 482.7 244.2 Bkn Pitted - - - - - Bkn Pitted - - - - 1.5 NO. 10 NO. 10 Wedged 25.3 25.0 21.5 25.4 32.2 Wedged 24.5 28.1 11.7 45.3 40.8 (600 X 700) (603 X 700) Sliced 2,817.7 2,779.6 2,581.2 2,427.9 2,463.5 Sliced 2,921.9 1,729.3 1,906.7 2,552.0 2,443.8 Chopped 31.0 26.5 20.7 23.1 46.9 Chopped 40.6 27.4 12.6 25.1 30.1 Grn Ripe Ptd - - - - - Grn Ripe Ptd - - - - - FOODSERVICE TOTAL 3,249.9 3,227.6 2,963.9 2,803.5 2,874.1 FOODSERVICE TOTAL 3,365.3 1,971.5 2,424.7 3,110.8 2,760.4 Whole 9.1 9.7 8.2 6.3 5.7 Whole 14.9 181.2 10.5 4.9 2.8 Pitted 7,903.2 7,786.8 7,559.7 6,922.3 6,714.3 Pitted 8,534.4 5,359.8 6,328.1 6,834.7 6,824.3 Bkn Pitted 27.3 27.1 24.6 27.8 24.8 NO. 300 Bkn Pitted 422.0 13.1 20.8 6.5 2.3 Wedged - - - - - (300 X 407) NO. 300 Wedged - - - - - Sliced 301.7 369.1 383.3 416.9 443.9 (300 X 407) Sliced 365.3 372.5 270.4 391.8 489.1 Chopped 2.1 4.0 4.8 7.2 4.9 Chopped 5.6 2.4 787.3 12.5 12.9 Grn Ripe Wh/Ptd 170.4 172.8 162.4 145.3 124.1 Whole - - - - - Grn Ripe Wh/Ptd 33.1 87.0 96.3 149.2 193.7 Pitted 18.5 18.2 19.2 15.5 17.1 Whole - - - 6,411.9 - Pitted 15.1 6.5 31.4 15.8 7.6 BUFFET Bkn Pitted - - - - - (211 X 304) Wedged - - - - - BUFFET Bkn Pitted - - - - - Sliced 666.1 706.4 709.7 677.9 686.4 (211 X 304) Wedged - - - - - Chopped 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.9 0.0 Sliced 762.0 508.7 607.1 665.0 676.1

2-1/4 OZ Wedged 1.8 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.6 Chopped - - - 15.7 - (211 X 200) Sliced 841.8 822.5 758.2 700.0 665.4 2-1/4 OZ Wedged - 2.5 - 3.6 - (211 X 200) 4-1/4 OZ Sliced 830.7 517.1 601.3 715.1 578.3 Chopped 262.6 245.0 225.3 157.9 179.6 (211 X 200) 4-1/4 OZ Chopped 218.8 155.2 147.8 147.2 165.5 CONSUMER TOTAL 10,204.6 10,163.0 9,857.1 9,151.4 8,867.8 (211 X 200)

TOTALS 13,454.5 13,390.6 12,821.0 11,954.9 11,741.9 CONSUMER TOTAL 11,201.9 7,206.0 8,901.0 15,373.9 8,952.6 SOURCE: COC/NASS TOTALS 14,567.2 9,177.5 11,325.7 18,484.7 11,713.0 SOURCE: COC/NASS

258 SHIPMENTS BY SIZE OF CONTAINER PACK BY SIZE OF CONTAINER CANNED RIPE & GREEN RIPE - WHOLE & PITTED CANNED RIPE & GREEN RIPE - WHOLE & PITTED BROKEN PITTED - LIMITED USE STYLES BROKEN PITTED - LIMITED USE STYLES 2013-14 TO 2017-18 2013-14 TO 2017-18 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis) (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis)

TOTALS 13,454.5 13,390.6 12,821.0 11,954.9 11,741.9 CONSUMER TOTAL 11,201.9 7,206.0 8,901.0 15,373.9 8,952.6 SOURCE: COC/NASS TOTALS 14,567.2 9,177.5 11,325.7 18,484.7 11,713.0 SOURCE: COC/NASS

259 PACK BY SIZE GRADE 16 CUMULATIVE PACKED BY SIZE 16 CANNED RIPE & GREEN RIPE - WHOLE & PITTED PACK BY SIZE GRADE 2008-09 TO 2017-18 4,000 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis) 4,000 PACK BY SIZE GRADE 3,000 SIZE GRADE 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 3,000 SMALL 484.8 264.2 717.8 1,792.8 302.5 254.9 29.0 65.6 251.8 193.6 2,000 MEDIUM 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 2,085.9 2,000 1,000 LARGE 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 1,792.4 EX LG 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 2,262.0

CONVERTED CASES 1,000 0

CONVERTED CASES EX LG SEV 34.9 7.7 28.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.9 0 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 JUMBO 305.0 183.2 445.5 536.8 210.0 264.9 112.5 254.2 143.6 352.5 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 SMALL MEDIUM LARGE EX LARGE COLOSSAL 286.6 187.4 391.5 331.6 64.8 263.0 143.8 209.2 108.8 184.4 SMALL MEDIUM LARGE EX LARGE SUP COL 73.2 72.2 118.4 12.3 8.0 23.6 34.0 51.0 29.0 7.7 PACK BY SIZE GRADE TOTAL 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 6,882.4 1,000 PACK BY SIZE GRADE GR-W/PTD 175.5 25.0 54.7 106.0 72.3 33.1 87.0 96.3 149.2 193.7 1,000 TOTALS 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 7,076.1 SOURCE: COC/NASS 500 500 CONVERTED CASES 0 CONVERTED CASES 0 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 JUMBO COLOSSAL S.COLOSSAL JUMBO COLOSSAL S.COLOSSAL

Source: COC/NASS Source: COC/NASS

260 CUMULATIVE PACKED BY SIZE CANNED RIPE & GREEN RIPE - WHOLE & PITTED 2008-09 TO 2017-18 (Thousands of cases 24/300 Basis)

SIZE GRADE 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 SMALL 484.8 264.2 717.8 1,792.8 302.5 254.9 29.0 65.6 251.8 193.6 MEDIUM 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 2,085.9 LARGE 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 1,792.4 EX LG 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 2,262.0 EX LG SEV 34.9 7.7 28.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.9 JUMBO 305.0 183.2 445.5 536.8 210.0 264.9 112.5 254.2 143.6 352.5 COLOSSAL 286.6 187.4 391.5 331.6 64.8 263.0 143.8 209.2 108.8 184.4 SUP COL 73.2 72.2 118.4 12.3 8.0 23.6 34.0 51.0 29.0 7.7 TOTAL 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 6,882.4 GR-W/PTD 175.5 25.0 54.7 106.0 72.3 33.1 87.0 96.3 149.2 193.7 TOTALS 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 7,076.1 SOURCE: COC/NASS

261 PRODUCING COUNTY REPORT: IN TONNAGE* 2017-18 PRODUCING COUNTY REPORT: IN COMMERCIAL ACREAGE* 2017 HARVEST COUNTY SEVI MANZ OTHER GRAND TOTALS COUNTY SEVI MANZ OTHER ACREAGE BUTTE - 254 92 346 BUTTE - 6 1 7 COLUSA - 11 - 11 COLUSA - - - - FRESNO 107 3,672 - 3,779 FRESNO 16 336 - 352 GLENN 1,846 16,389 1 18,236 GLENN 316 1,407 1 1,724 IMPERIAL - - - - IMPERIAL - 140 - KERN - - - - KERN - - - - MADERA 69 262 - 331 MADERA 7 82 - 89 SAN JOAQUIN - 26 - 26 SHASTA - 8 20 28 SHASTA - 90 25 115 SAN JOAQUIN - - - - TEHAMA 5,052 15,492 42 20,586 TEHAMA 532 2,126 7 2,665 TULARE 944 45,624 239 46,807 TULARE 75 6,392 7 6,474 GRAND TOTAL 946 10,497 36 11,339 GRAND TOTAL 8,018 81,820 399 90,237 ACREAGE: SOURCE: COC *ACREAGE IS REPORTED BASED ON ACTUAL PRODUCTION OF THE CURRENT YEAR. ACREAGE MAY VARY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 2018 HARVEST COUNTY SEVI MANZ OTHER GRAND TOTALS BUTTE - 7 2 9 COLUSA - - - - FRESNO 37 711 - 748 GLENN 673 3,185 2 3,860 IMPERIAL - 54 - 54 KERN - - - - MADERA 5 145 - 150 SAN JOAQUIN - - - - SHASTA - 2 15 17 TEHAMA 910 2,184 21 3,115 TULARE 257 9,730 12 9,999 GRAND TOTAL 1,882 16,018 52 17,952 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.

262 PRODUCING COUNTY REPORT: IN TONNAGE* 2017-18 PRODUCING COUNTY REPORT: IN COMMERCIAL ACREAGE* 2017 HARVEST COUNTY SEVI MANZ OTHER GRAND TOTALS COUNTY SEVI MANZ OTHER ACREAGE BUTTE - 254 92 346 BUTTE - 6 1 7 COLUSA - 11 - 11 COLUSA - - - - FRESNO 107 3,672 - 3,779 FRESNO 16 336 - 352 GLENN 1,846 16,389 1 18,236 GLENN 316 1,407 1 1,724 IMPERIAL - - - - IMPERIAL - 140 - KERN - - - - KERN - - - - MADERA 69 262 - 331 MADERA 7 82 - 89 SAN JOAQUIN - 26 - 26 SHASTA - 8 20 28 SHASTA - 90 25 115 SAN JOAQUIN - - - - TEHAMA 5,052 15,492 42 20,586 TEHAMA 532 2,126 7 2,665 TULARE 944 45,624 239 46,807 TULARE 75 6,392 7 6,474 GRAND TOTAL 946 10,497 36 11,339 GRAND TOTAL 8,018 81,820 399 90,237 ACREAGE: SOURCE: COC *ACREAGE IS REPORTED BASED ON ACTUAL PRODUCTION OF THE CURRENT YEAR. ACREAGE MAY VARY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 2018 HARVEST COUNTY SEVI MANZ OTHER GRAND TOTALS BUTTE - 7 2 9 COLUSA - - - - FRESNO 37 711 - 748 GLENN 673 3,185 2 3,860 IMPERIAL - 54 - 54 KERN - - - - MADERA 5 145 - 150 SAN JOAQUIN - - - - SHASTA - 2 15 17 TEHAMA 910 2,184 21 3,115 TULARE 257 9,730 12 9,999 GRAND TOTAL 1,882 16,018 52 17,952 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.

263 CALIFORNIA OLIVES RECEIVED: CALIFORNIA OLIVES - GROWER PRICES SEVILLANO, MANZANILLO, & OTHER VARIETIES 20 1998-99 TO 2017-18

CANNING SIZE LIMITED SIZE YEAR TONS AVG. PRICE ($) TONS AVG. PRICE ($) 1998-99 64,161 564 12,830 218 CALIFORNIA OLIVES RECEIVED: SEVILLANO, MANZANILLO, & OTHER VARIETIES 1999-00 85,639 580 36,474 277 160,000 2000-01 41,260 781 5,114 331 140,000 2001-02 108,143 754 15,297 297 120,000 2002-03 79,113 672 9,893 306 100,000

TONS 2003-04 92,240 478 10,467 254 80,000 2004-05 69,737 720 16,126 276 60,000 2005-06 93,627 715 21,135 261 40,000 2006-07 14,769 961 1,501 249 20,000 2007-08 88,072 1,008 19,906 378 0 FOOD SERVICE SLICED SHIPMENTS - % BY MONTH 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 17 2008-09 43,360 1,109 5,891 381 SEVILLANO MANZANILLO OTHER 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 2017-18 66,244 1,332 17,184 784 SOURCE: OLIVE GROWERS COUNCIL (OGC) AVERAGE PRICE- INDEPENDENT CANNER PRICE NOT INCLUDING STANDARD BONUS, EXTRA BONUS, OR HAULING ALLOWANCE.

264 CALIFORNIA OLIVES - GROWER PRICES 1998-99 TO 2017-18

CANNING SIZE LIMITED SIZE YEAR TONS AVG. PRICE ($) TONS AVG. PRICE ($) 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 2017-18 66,244 1,332 17,184 784 SOURCE: OLIVE GROWERS COUNCIL (OGC) AVERAGE PRICE- INDEPENDENT CANNER PRICE NOT INCLUDING STANDARD BONUS, EXTRA BONUS, OR HAULING ALLOWANCE.

265 OLIVE GROWER PRICES & DELIVERIES CALIFORNIA OLIVE RECEIPTS BY VARIETY (IN CANNING SIZE TONS) DELIVERED TO REGULATED HANDLERS OLIVE GROWER PRICES & DELIVERIES 2008-09 TO 2017-18 (in CANNING SIZE TONS) $1,500 135,000 (in Tons) $1,400 $1,300 120,000 VARIETY SEASON CANNING LIMITED UNDERSIZE CULLS* TOTAL $1,200 105,000 2008-09 4,923 211 187 127 5,448 $1,100 $1,000 90,000 2009-10 1,589 140 172 24 1,925 $900 2010-11 12,956 2,029 868 660 16,513 $800 75,000 OLIVE GROWER PRICES & DELIVERIES 2011-12 3,957 347 187 211 4,702 $700 60,000 PRICE PER TON $600 (in CANNING SIZE TONS) 2012-13 8,737 636 325 255 9,953 $1,500 135,000 SEVILLANO $1,400$500 45,000 2013-14 4,804 233 157 255 5,449 $1,300$400 120,000 $300 30,000 2014-15 3,223 287 136 67 3,713 $1,200 105,000 $1,100$200 15,000 2015-16 6,643 686 312 223 7,864 $100 $1,000 90,000 2016-17 6,158 445 225 195 7,023 $900$0 0 $800 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 75,000 2017-18 6,773 772 236 210 7,991 $700 60,000 2008-09 37,581 5,374 960 891 44,806 PRICE PER TON PRICE TONS $600 2009-10 18,453 928 164 473 20,018 $500 45,000 $400 2010-11 101,234 34,465 6,612 5,082 147,393 30,000 $300 OLIVE GROWER PRICES & DELIVERIES 2011-12 19,192 1,735 302 637 21,866 $200 (in LIMITED SIZE TONS) 15,000 2012-13 59,307 5,425 674 2,105 67,511 $100$450 40,000 MANZANILLO $0 0 2013-14 70,501 10,132 1,461 2,787 84,881 $400 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 2014-15 26,084 5,388 667 812 32,951 $350 2015-16 49,855 13,701 3,071 2,623 69,250 $300 OLIVE GROWERPRICE PRICES &TONS DELIVERIES 2016-17 44,519 10,475 1,721 2,049 58,764 $250 (IN LIMITED SIZE TONS) 20,000 2017-18 59,472 16,412 3,122 2,792 81,798 $200 OLIVE GROWER PRICES & DELIVERIES

PRICE PER TON 2008-09 856 306 104 23 1,289 $150 (in LIMITED SIZE TONS) $450 40,000 2009-10 857 183 28 22 1,090 $100 $400 2010-11 739 260 33 45 1,077 $50 $350 2011-12 314 47 6 10 377 $0 0 $300 2012-13 427 223 37 27 714 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 OTHER VARIETIES $250 2013-14 363 77 10 10 460 20,000 $200 PRICE TONS 2014-15 254 163 28 9 454 PRICE PER TON $150 2015-16 623 195 27 19 864 $100 2016-17 242 89 16 12 359 $50 2017-18 267 104 20 8 399 $0 0 2008-09 43,360 5,891 1,250 1,042 51,543 Source: OGC/NASS 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 22 2009-10 20,899 1,251 364 519 23,033 2010-11 114,930 36,754 7,514 5,787 164,985 PRICE TONS 2011-12 23,463 2,129 495 858 26,945 2012-13 68,471 6,284 1,036 2,387 78,178 TOTAL 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 Source: OGC/NASS 22 2016-17 50,919 11,009 1,962 2,256 66,146 2017-18 66,512 17,288 3,379 3,010 90,189 •INCLUDES UNGRADED FRUIT SOURCE: COC/NASS

266 CALIFORNIA OLIVE RECEIPTS BY VARIETY DELIVERED TO REGULATED HANDLERS 2008-09 TO 2017-18 (in Tons) VARIETY SEASON CANNING LIMITED UNDERSIZE CULLS* TOTAL 2008-09 4,923 211 187 127 5,448 2009-10 1,589 140 172 24 1,925 2010-11 12,956 2,029 868 660 16,513 2011-12 3,957 347 187 211 4,702 2012-13 8,737 636 325 255 9,953 SEVILLANO 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 2017-18 6,773 772 236 210 7,991 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 MANZANILLO 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 2017-18 59,472 16,412 3,122 2,792 81,798 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 OTHER VARIETIES 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 2017-18 267 104 20 8 399 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 TOTAL 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 2017-18 66,512 17,288 3,379 3,010 90,189 •INCLUDES UNGRADED FRUIT SOURCE: COC/NASS

267 GROWER DELIVERIES TO HANDLERS BY SIZE GRADE 2008-09 TO 2017-18 (in Tons)

SIZE GRADE 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 SMALL 6,006 1,432 34,193 2,121 8,544 10,979 4,825 8,846 7,980 13,418 MEDIUM 7,868 2,637 28,647 3,247 13,780 17,804 8,246 12,935 11,764 17,617 LARGE 11,544 5,417 25,507 5,158 16,634 22,791 6,399 11,455 10,503 14,403 EX LG 12,999 9,821 13,376 8,852 20,676 19,193 6,833 17,108 14,445 14,230 JUMBO 1,324 431 6,180 1,133 3,289 1,356 1,268 2,856 2,633 3,141 COLOSSAL 2,345 596 3,427 1,633 3,097 2,169 1,001 2,002 2,181 1,876 SUP COL 1,274 566 801 948 1,445 1,033 568 831 608 425 LIMITED 5,891 1,251 36,754 2,129 6,285 10,442 5,838 14,582 11,008 17,288 CANNING & LTD 49,251 22,151 148,885 25,221 73,750 85,767 34,978 70,615 61,122 82,398 TOTAL SOURCE: COC/NASS

268 Imports

GROWER DELIVERIES TO HANDLERS BY SIZE GRADE The following information is from U.S. Customs. This data reviews the imports in grower tons 2008-09 TO 2017-18 from 2005-2006 through 2017-2018. (in Tons)

269 U.S. CUSTOMS IMPORT DATA IN GROWER TONS

WHOLE/ FS WEDGED & TOTAL BULK TOTAL CROP YEAR PITTED FS SLICED CHOPPED CANNED (AUG -JULY) IMPORTS FS & RETAIL 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 11,142 64,611 2,958 78,711 8,185 86,896 2016-17 11,384 52,074 2,163 65,621 13,813 79,434 2017-18 13,257 48,188 2,336 63,781 3,750 67,531 SOURCE: US CUSTOMS

270 U.S. CUSTOMS IMPORT DATA IN GROWER TONS

www.calolive.org

271 272