Support Feedipedia

Automatic translation

Who is visiting Feedipedia?

 

Editor area

Olive forage

Description and recommendations

Common names

Olivier, olive, olive tree, olivo, azeitona

Products: olive tree forage, olive tree leaves, olive leaves, olive branches, olive browse

Synonyms

Olea africana Mill., Olea chrysophylla Lam., Olea cuspidata Wall. ex G. Don, Olea europaea subsp. africana (Mill.) P. S. Green, Olea europaea var. cerasiformis Webb & Berthel., nom. illeg., Olea europaea var. maderensis Lowe, Olea ferruginea Royle, Olea laperrinei Batt. & Trab., Olea maroccana Greuter & Burdet, Olea sativa var. verrucosa (Willd.) Roem. & Schult., Olea verrucosa (Willd.) (USDA, 2010)

Description

The olive tree (Olea europaea L.) is a slow growing evergreen tree that reaches 5-10 m. It is an emblematic tree of the Mediterranean basin. Its root system is rather shallow. The trunk is erect, deeply fissurated and distorded. The leaves are simple, lanceolate, 3-9 cm × 0.5-3 cm, leathery, dark grey-green and glabrous on the upper side, densely silvery scaly beneath. They are covered by a cuticle that prevents dehydration. The tree shed its leaves once every three years. The inflorescences are 3–8 cm long, many-flowered, borne on the leaf axils. Only 1-5 % of the flowers develop into fruit. The fruit is a drupe containing a fleshy mesocarp (pulp) and a woody endocarp (stone or pit). The pulp contains some 20 % oil and is highly bitter due to its high tannin content. The tree starts producing fruits 4-7 years after propagation (through cuttings or suckers) and remains productive up to 50 years. Its life-span may reach 500 years (Ecocrop, 2010; Ecoport, 2010; van der Vossen et al., 2007).

Olive trees are mostly cultivated for their edible fruits from which olive oil can be extracted. There are about 2000 cultivars that can be divided into 3 groups: cultivars for oil extraction, cultivars for table olive production and dual purpose cultivars (Ecocrop, 2010; Ecoport, 2010; van der Vossen et al., 2007). Olive fruits can also be eaten after soaking. Fruits yields vary from 1–10 t/ha depending on cultivation conditions (traditional olive groves or irrigated well-managed commercial plantings). However, there is always considerable year-to-year variation in productivity. One hectare produces 350–400 kg olive oil/ha. Olive oil has recently received renewed interest for its potential health benefits as it contains unsaturated fatty acids and small amounts of polyphenols, tocopherols and sterols (Ecocrop, 2010).

In 2009, the world production of olive oil was almost twice (2.91 million tons) that of 1995 (1.65 million tons). 98 % of the production of olive oil is done in Mediterranean countries. Spain, Italy and Greece are the main producers (75% of the total production) (FAO, 2010). Spain, USA and Greece are the top producers of olive fruit. World table olive production is 1.1 million tons and represents 8 % of total olive fruit production. Main table olive producers are Spain, the USA, Turkey, Morocco, Syria, Greece and Italy (van der Vossen et al., 2007).

Olive by-products are commonly fed to livestock. For further information about olive oil processing by-products, see the datasheet Olive oil cake and by-products. Olive forage is relished by cattle, sheep, goats and camels (Le Houérou, 1980). It can be browsed by livestock or cut and brought fresh to livestock after pruning.

Distribution

Olive is a native and characteristic fruit tree of the Mediterranean Basin. The wild Mediterranean olive (Olea europaea subsp. europaea var. sylvestris (Mill.) Lehr) was domesticated 4000 BC in the eastern Mediterranean and in the Middle East. The cultivated form, Olea europaea subsp. europaea var. europaea, was spread by the Phoenicians and the Greeks throughout the Mediterranean Basin and eastwards to north-western India and the Caucasus (van der Vossen et al., 2007). The Spanish introduced olive cultivation to the New World (Peru, Chile, Argentina, Mexico and United States (California)) in the 16–18th centuries. In the 19th century, it was introduced in China and Japan, and in Australia and South Africa. However, about 97 % of the world’s 850 million olive trees are still grown in the Mediterranean region.

In tropical Africa a small production of table olives is developing in Namibia. The wild African olive (Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata (Will. ex G.Don) Cif.) grows in Central, East and southern Africa and in the Indian Ocean Islands in mountain woodland, rainforest and wooded grassland at elevations between 1000–3150 m. It is also found in Arabia and from south-western Asia to China (van der Vossen et al., 2007).

The olive tree is typical of relatively dry Mediterranean climates. It is found between 30° and 45° in both hemispheres and from sea-level to 900 m (1200 m in Argentina) altitude. Olive tree is winter-hardy and tolerates -8°C to -12°C. Optimal growth conditions are average day-temperatures ranging from 18°C to 22°C and 6-9 week vernalization below 9°C, annual rainfall down to 300 mm on light well-drained soils. Olive trees can survive drier conditions but for commercial purpose irrigation is advisable during scarce periods so that the total amount of water reaches 500-800 mm/year. Olive trees do well on poor soils provided they are not waterlogged, saline or to alkaline (pH < 8.5) (van der Vossen et al., 2007; Duke, 1983).

Forage management

Direct browsing

Olive forage browsing is used in integrated systems including olive oil production and livestock. The trees are browsed after olive harvest, only during winter and spring. Ruminants (mainly sheep) are allowed to enter the olive tree fields and browse freely.

In traditional "Iberico" pig production, pigs enter the olive fields but only graze the understorey grass and eat the fallen fruits without browsing olive forage (Gomez Cabrera, 2010, personal communication).

Cut-and-carry systems

Pruning is of utmost importance in olive tree management as it allows to balance tree growth and fruit production. The products of pruning are mainly woody stems and suckers that are used for fuel or charcoal. The stems are bearing leaves (50 % of the total biomass; Parellada Vilella et al., 1984) that can be hand-cut, dried and winnowed. In the 1980s, mechanical chopping experiments were done without positive effects (Parellada Vilella et al., 1984). Later, various baling systems have been developed. Chopped olive forage may be packed with high pressure balers alone or mixed with cereal straw or hay (Delgado Pertiñez et al., 1994).

Olive foliage may also be ensiled provided no air is left (Gomez Cabrera, 2010, personal communication).

Potential constraints

The use of copper-rich fungicides to treat diseases such as the peacock spot (Cycloconium oleaginum or Spilocea oleaginea) can result in amounts of copper that can be toxic to sheep.

In dairy cattle, olive branches were reported to cause a very low DM intake (25 g/kg0.75) and serious digestive pathologies due to the accumulation of wood splinters in the omasum (Parellada Vilella et al., 1982).

Nutritional attributes

The chemical composition and nutritive value of olive leaves depend on their process of obtention (cleaning or pruning) and on the amount of woody material they contain. Olive leaves are characterised by a high level of fibre (NDF is about 40-60 % DM) and lignin (15-28 % DM). This large range is caused by the variable amounts of twigs and branches present in the leaf material. Crude protein content is rather low (about 9.5 % DM). High values (over 16 % DM) could be associated to the use of foliar fertilisers, which could also affect nitrate content (Delgado Pertíñez et al., 2000). Between 30 % to 56 % of the protein is bound to ADF (Delgado Pertíñez et al., 2000; Garrido Varo et al., 1989). Along with the high content in polyphenols, this could explain the low digestibility of the protein (Molina Alcaide et al., 2008). Leaves resulting from the cleaning process contain higher amounts of ash due to soil contamination, and a higher oil content due to contact with the fruits.

The moisture level of green leaves starts at about 45-50 % and decreases rapidly when the leaves are left to dry and are protected from rain. The main limitation to the use of olive leaves is that they need to be carried off the olive fields in order to avoid damaging the fruits. Transportation systems should be designed so that they minimize water loss and conserve the nutritional value.

Tables of chemical composition and nutritional value

Ruminants

Olive leaves and twigs are a suitable forage for ruminants as a bulky feed in maintenance and low-production systems. They are rich in long fibres and require nitrogen and phosphorus supplementation. Leaves treated with copper-based fungicides should not be given to sheep.

Cattle or sheep accept daily 1-1.5 kg of green leaves and 0.8-1 kg of dried leaves per 100 kg of live weight (Göhl, 1982). Olive leaves should be fed green whenever possible (Göhl, 1982). Their nutritive value decreases with drying: reported OM digestibility of fresh leaves (in sheep) is about 55-60 % while OMD of leaves dried on the branches or baled is about 40-50 %. OMD of leaves from chopped branches is in the 15-40% range, even when protected from rain (Delgado Pertíñez et al., 2000). Alkaline treatments (NaOH and NH3) have not been shown to improve significantly the nutritive value of olive leaves (Parellada Vilella et al., 1984).

The low protein digestibility, particularly in the dried leaves, requires nitrogen supplementation with protein or non-protein sources, resulting in higher feed intake (Parellada Vilella et al., 1984).

Cattle

Old dry leaves are palatable to cattle if they are soaked overnight in 2.5 times the volume of water containing 0.2 % salt (Göhl, 1982). In dairy cattle, ensiling and partial drying decrease bitterness and improve palatability, but total dehydration results in a decrease of palatability (Nigh, 1977).

In dairy cattle, wood splinters were reported to cause low DM intake and serious digestive pathologies (Parellada Vilella et al., 1982).

Sheep and goats

Significative differences in the digestibility of mixtures of olive leaves and twigs have been observed between sheep and goats, and between different breeds of sheep (Merina and Manchega), as certain animals are better at selecting the less woody parts (Gómez Cabrera et al., 1982).

In sheep, the dry matter and organic matter digestibility of dried olive leaves in sheep can be predicted from fiber content using the following equations (Delgado Pertíñez et al., 2000):

  • DM digestibility (%) = 98.21 – 1.31 NDF (% DM) (r = - 0.92; RSD = 3.97)
  • OM digestibility (%) = 105.65 – 1.39 NDF (% DM) (r = - 0.91; RSD = 4.32)

Citation

Heuzé V., Tran G., Gomez Cabrera A., 2012. Olive forage. Feedipedia.org. A programme by INRA, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. http://www.feedipedia.org/node/121 Last updated on October 25, 2012, 15:44

Tables

Tables of chemical composition and nutritional value

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Dry matter % as fed 89.8 5.9 75.0 94.3 9  
Crude protein % DM 7.8 2.3 4.1 11.0 11  
Crude fibre % DM 25.1 7.1 19.2 43.4 10  
NDF % DM 52.5 11.3 41.9 79.3 10  
ADF % DM 38.7 7.2 31.7 53.6 10  
Lignin % DM 17.9 6.6 10.5 26.2 4  
Ether extract % DM 4.6 3.4 1.5 8.2 3  
Ash % DM 7.2 1.7 3.9 8.7 9  
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 18.5         *
               
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Calcium g/kg DM 24.0       1  
Phosphorus g/kg DM 1.1       1  
               
Secondary metabolites Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Tannins, condensed (eq. catechin) g/kg DM 7.0       1  
               
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 32.7 6.7 32.0 51.6 6 *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 29.7         *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 5.5         *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 4.5         *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 22.2 8.1 13.5 29.4 3  
               
Rabbit nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, rabbit % 37.5         *
DE rabbit MJ/kg DM 6.9   6.2 7.7 2  
MEn rabbit MJ/kg DM 6.9         *
Nitrogen digestibility, rabbit % 10.0       1  

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

AFZ, 2011; Alibes et al., 1990; Fernandez Carmona et al., 1996; Garcia et al., 1996; Gomez Cabrera, 2009; Maymone et al., 1947

Last updated on 31/10/2012 10:36:53

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 50.1 12.2 33.4 68.5 6
Crude protein % DM 9.8 1.6 7.7 13.1 9
Crude fibre % DM 17.9 3.9 14.0 24.5 5
NDF % DM 46.1 5.5 41.3 54.9 7
ADF % DM 34.1 5.6 28.1 44.1 7
Lignin % DM 20.1 4.0 16.2 25.0 5
Ether extract % DM 6.3 1.1 4.7 7.3 5
Ash % DM 9.0 3.1 6.1 15.8 8
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 18.3 *
 
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Calcium g/kg DM 21.5 7.4 11.8 29.7 4
Phosphorus g/kg DM 0.9 0.1 0.8 0.9 4
 
Secondary metabolites Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Tannins, condensed (eq. catechin) g/kg DM 15.0 1
 
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 56.9 52.6 61.1 2
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 53.7 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 9.8 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 8.1 *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 44.3 44.3 44.3 2
a (N) % 10.1 10.0 10.2 2
b (N) % 75.2 72.7 77.6 2
c (N) h-1 0.145 0.120 0.170 2
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 69 *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 63 62 64 2 *

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

Alibes et al., 1990; CIRAD, 1991; Gomez Cabrera, 2009; Maymone et al., 1947

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:44:43

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 77.1 77.0 77.1 2
Crude protein % DM 12.2 12.2 12.2 2
Crude fibre % DM 20.2 20.2 20.2 2
Ether extract % DM 7.9 1
Ash % DM 8.4 8.4 8.4 2
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 19.2 *
 
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 47.5 47.4 47.6 2
ME ruminants (FAO, 1982) MJ/kg DM 7.2 1
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 16.8 16.8 16.8 2

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

Alibes et al., 1990; Maymone et al., 1947

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:44:43

References

References

Abbeddou, S. ; Rihawi, S. ; Hess, H. D. ; Iniguez, L. ; Mayer, A. C. ; Kreuzer, M., 2011. Nutritional composition of lentil straw, vetch hay, olive leaves, and saltbush leaves and their digestibility as measured in fat-tailed sheep. Small Rumin. Res., 96 (2-3): 126-135 web icon
Chedly, K. ; Lee, S, 1999. Silage from by-products for smallholders. FAO Electronic Conference on Tropical Silage web icon
Delgado Pertíñez, M. ; Gómez Cabrera, A. ; Garrido Varo, A. ; Guerrero Ginel, J.E., 1994. Olive leaves: a useful product. Mundo Ganadero, 12: 44-48 web icon
Delgado Pertíñez, M. ; Gómez Cabrera, A. ; Garrido Varo, A., 2000. Predicting the nutritive value of the olive leaf (Olea europaea): digestibility and chemical composition and in vitro studies. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 87: 187-201 web icon
Duke, J. A., 1983. Handbook of Energy Crops. NewCROPS web site, Purdue University web icon
Ecocrop, 2010. Ecocrop database. FAO web icon
Ecoport, 2010. Ecoport database. Ecoport web icon
FAO, 2010. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations web icon
Garcia, J. ; Carabaño, R. ; Perez Alba, L. ; de Blas, C., 2000. Effect of fiber source on cecal fermentation and nitrogen recycled through cecotrophy in rabbits. J. Anim. Sci., 78 (3): 638–646 web icon
Garrido Varo, A. ; Gómez Cabrera, A. ; Guerrero Ginel, J. E. ; Ortiz Somovilla, V., 1989. Corolario de los resultados obtenidos en la valoración del orujo de aceituna y la hoja de olivo. En Nuevas Fuentes de Alimentos para la Producción Animal III. Gómez Cabrera, A., Molina Alcalde, E., Garrido Varo, A., ed. Colección Congresos y Jornadas nº 12. CAP. Junta de Andalucía. Pp. 445-463
Göhl, B., 1982. Les aliments du bétail sous les tropiques. FAO, Division de Production et Santé Animale, Roma, Italy web icon
Gómez Cabrera, A. ; Parellada Vilella, J. ; Garrido Varo, A. ; Ocaña Luzón, F., 1982. Utilización del ramón de olivo en la alimentación animal. 2. Valor Alimenticio. Avances en alimentación y mejora animal, 23 (2): 75-77
Le Houérou, H. N., 1980. Browse in Africa. The current state of knowledge. Papers presented in the International Symposium on Browse in Africa, Addis Ababa, April 8-12, 1980, International Livestock Center for Africa web icon
Maymone, B. ; Sblendorio, A. ; Ceci-Ginestrelli, D., 1947. Ricerche sulla composizione chimica, sulla digeribilita et sul valore nutritivo delle foglie di olivo (Olea europaea L.) verdi, essicate, insilate. Annali Sper. agr. (N.S.), 1: 71-88
Maymone, B. ; Ceci-Ginestrelli, D., 1947. Ricerche sulla digeribilita et sul valore nutritivo dei ramonscelli di olivo (Olea europaea L.). Annali Sper. agr. (N.S.), 1: 89-95
Molina Alcaide, E. ; Yañez Ruiz, D. R., 2008. Potential use of olive by-products in ruminant feeding: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 147: 247-264 web icon
Nefzaoui, A. ; Marchand, S. ; Vanbelle, M, 1982. Evaluation of olive pulp in the feeding of ruminants. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Tropical Animal Production for the Benefit of Man. 1982, 309 314
Nigh, H., 1977. The use of olive leaf as roughage for dairy cattle. Appropriate technology, A (2): 11
Parellada Vilella, J. ; Gómez Cabrera, A. ; Ocaña Luzón, F. ; Garrido Varo, A., 1982. Utilización del ramón de olivo en la alimentación animal. 1. Efectos de diversos tratamientos físicos y de la forma de conservación. Avances en alimentación y mejora animal, 23 (11): 15-19
Parellada Vilella, J. ; Gomez Cabrera, A. ; Ocaña Luzon, F. ; Garrido Varo, A., 1984. Obtencion del ramon de olivo y utilizacion en alimentacion animal. En Nuevas Fuentes de Alimentos para la Produccion Animal II. Gomez Cabrera, A., Guerrero Ginel, J.E., Garrido Varo, A., ed. Universidad de Cordoba (España): 95-114
Qadir, M. ; Tubeileh, A. ; Akhtar, J. ; Larbi, A. ; Minhas, P. S. ; Khan, M. A., 2008. Productivity enhancement of salt-affected environments through crop diversification. Land Degradation & Development, 19 (4): 429-453 web icon
USDA, 2010. GRIN - Germplasm Resources Information Network. National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland web icon
van der Vossen, H. A. M. ; Mashungwa, G. N. ; Mmolotsi, R. M., 2007. Olea europaea L.. Record from Protabase. van der Vossen, H.A.M. & Mkamilo, G.S. (Editors). PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa / Ressources végétales de l’Afrique tropicale), Wageningen, Netherlands. web icon