Next Article in Journal
Effect of Various Thermal Treatments on Erythromycin Residues and Degradation Products in Turbot Fish Meat: Implications for Food Safety
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Whey and Sucrose Concentrations on Bacterial Cellulose Characteristics for Functional Food Applications
Previous Article in Special Issue
Improving Sensory Differentiation: Refining the ‘Fruitiness’ Descriptor in Extra Virgin Olive Oil
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/foods15040726
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Trade-Offs Between Fruit Health, Oil Accumulation, and Bioactive Retention During Olive Fruit Ripening in Four Spanish Olive Cultivars

by
Manuel A. Martínez-Cañas
1,*,
Ana González-Trejo
1,
Hédia Manai-Djebali
2 and
Daniel Cortés-Montaña
1
1
Centre for Scientific and Technological Research of Extremadura (CICYTEX), Department of Oils, Junta de Extremadura, Avda. Adolfo Suárez s/n, 06007 Badajoz, Spain
2
Laboratory of Olive Biotechnology, Center of Biotechnology of Borj Cedria, LR15CBBC05, B.P. 901, Hammam-Lif 2050, Tunisia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2026, 15(4), 726; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15040726
Submission received: 19 January 2026 / Revised: 3 February 2026 / Accepted: 12 February 2026 / Published: 15 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Influence of Agricultural Practices on Olive Oil Chemical Characteristics and Evaluation of Virgin Olive Oil Quality)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study evaluated the influence of ripening stage on sanitary status, fruit characteristics, oil content, and quality parameters in four Spanish olive cultivars (‘Arbequina’, ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’, ‘Morisca’, and ‘Picual’) grown in Badajoz, Spain. The sanitary status of olives declined significantly as ripening progressed across all cultivars, with ‘Morisca’ showing the most pronounced deterioration (from 99.33% to 51.11% healthy fruits) and ‘Arbequina’ exhibiting the greatest tolerance (80.17% at full maturity). Oil content on a dry basis increased steadily during ripening in all cultivars, ranging from 35.10 to 36.84% at early stages to 44.26–49.51% at full maturity, while extractability patterns varied among cultivars. Total phenolic compounds decreased significantly in ‘Arbequina’ and ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’, while ‘Morisca’ and ‘Picual’ remained stable during ripening. Oxidative stability was highest in ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’ (90.28–137.64 h) and ‘Picual’ (100.67–109.37 h) oils, while ‘Arbequina’ and ‘Morisca’ exhibited moderate values (40.04–54.85 h). All oils showed acidity levels below the 0.80% limit for extra virgin classification throughout ripening (0.09–0.21% oleic acid). These findings provide valuable insights for optimizing harvest timing according to desired quality profiles, with early harvest recommended for maximizing phenolic content and oxidative stability in ‘Arbequina’ and ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’, while ‘Morisca’ and ‘Picual’ offer greater flexibility in harvest scheduling without compromising oil quality.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Olea europaea (Olea europaea L.) is a traditional agroforestry species native to the Mediterranean region, where it plays an important economic role. Among its products, virgin olive oil (VOO) stands out as one of the most valuable products [1]. VOO is obtained exclusively through physical (mechanical) processes such as pressing, centrifugation, and percolation. These methods preserve both bioactive and aromatic compounds naturally present in olives, which contribute to the oil’s distinctive organoleptic profile [2,3].
Traditionally, the selection of suitable cultivars has been based predominantly on physical traits such as fruit yield and oil content, with limited consideration of the chemical composition of the resulting VOO. Recent studies have begun to address this gap by examining key chemical components, in particular fatty acids (FAs), volatile compounds, and simple phenols [4]. Although fatty acids are variety-dependent, other chemical parameters have to be analyzed to obtain the highest quality. Therefore, comprehensive selection criteria including both physical and chemical traits are essential in olive breeding and cultivation.
Physicochemical parameters of olive fruit—such as oil content, moisture, Abencor yield (AY), and extractability index (EI)—have been proposed as useful indicators of oil productivity [5]. In addition, fatty acid composition and phenolic compounds are the main chemical attributes employed to evaluate virgin olive oil (VOO) quality and oxidative stability, owing to their notable nutritional value and antioxidant capacity, which help protect VOO against thermal oxidation and auto-oxidation processes [6].
The factors influencing these physicochemical properties can be grouped by processing technology [7], harvesting-related aspects [4], meteorological conditions [8], genotype [9], and agronomic practices [4].
Furthermore, the influence of cultivar and maturity index (MI) on VOO characteristics has been widely examined to evaluate the suitability and adaptability of olive cultivars to local environmental conditions, providing valuable information for regional agricultural authorities and producers [3,4].
Generally, oil accumulation in olives continues until full fruit maturity; however, extraction yield may either increase or decrease depending on the degree of ripeness [10]. Variations in oil content and extraction efficiency ultimately determine the amount of extractable oil.
In most cultivars, total phenolic content tends to decrease during fruit maturation, following an opposite trend to oil accumulation in the drupe [10]. Consequently, selecting the optimal harvest time must balance both the quantity and quality of the resulting VOO.
In Spain, almost 60% of the olive surface area is cultivated with ‘Arbequina’, ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’, ‘Morisca’, and ‘Picual’ cultivars. Furthermore, in the Tierra de Barros region, these four cultivars are the most widely grown [11].
Given the relevance of cultivar choice and harvest timing for oil production, the physicochemical properties of VOO from four widely cultivated olive varieties were evaluated at three maturity stages (MI: 0–1, 2–3, 4–5) in the Tierra de Barros region (Extremadura, Spain) in order to establish the optimal harvest time to obtain the highest quality and quantity of oil for each cultivar. Multivariate statistical approaches were employed to analyze the measurement data.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Material and Sampling

Samples were collected in Tierra de Barros, Extremadura (Spain), during the 2023/2024 growing season. Fruits from four major olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars widely grown in the area were manually harvested: ‘Arbequina’, ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’, ‘Morisca’, and ‘Picual’. The region was divided into three production zones. In each zone, three commercial plots were selected for each cultivar. For sampling, at each stage of ripeness, a random sample of at least ten olive trees per plot was taken. The olives were collected manually in the morning, taking samples randomly from different parts of the central area of the olive tree, collecting a total of 10 kg per cultivar and maturity stage. The ripening stage of each sample was determined according to the Uceda–Frías maturity index [12], based on the evaluation of skin and pulp color of 100 fruits per sample. Sampling was carried out every 40 days, giving three sampling dates: day 0 (entirely green or yellow (MI 0–1)); day 40 (partially colored–veraison (MI 2–3)); and day 80 (fully ripe (MI 4–5)) (Figure 1). After harvesting, the olive fruit samples were immediately transported in ventilated storage trays to the laboratory to avoid compositional changes. The oil was extracted within 24 h. The effect of different olive cultivars on the analytical parameters of the olive fruits and oils was studied, together with the evolution of these parameters over the course of maturation.

2.2. Sanitary Status and Physicochemical Characterization

The sanitary status of olives was assessed by visual inspection of 100 fruits per sample, recording defects caused by pests and/or diseases. Each fruit was classified as “healthy” (absence of damage) or “unhealthy” (presence of some damage), and the percentage of healthy fruits was calculated.
Moisture, dry basis oil content (DBOC), and extractability index were determined using a near-infrared (NIR) spectrometer model Olivescan (Foss, Hilleroed, Denmark), previously calibrated with certified reference samples following the International Olive Council (IOC) recommendations [13]. The extractability index percentage was calculated as the ratio between the oil yield obtained in the laboratory-scale extraction (see Section 2.3) and the total oil content in the olive paste (wet basis).

2.3. Laboratory Oil Extraction

Oil extraction was performed using the Abencor system (MC2, Seville, Spain) [14], which simulates industrial olive oil production on a laboratory scale. In total, 8 kg of unselected olives from each cultivar and ripening stage were processed independently. The process included milling, malaxation, and centrifugation following standard conditions: malaxation at 28 °C for 30 min. Extracted oils were immediately filtered through paper filters and stored in dark glass bottles at 4 °C until analysis.
The oil content yield (%) was calculated from the weight of ground olives (W1) and the read volume of olive oil extracted (V) according to the following equation:
Oil content yield (%) = 100 × V (mL) × 0.916/W1 (g)
where 0.916 corresponds to olive oil density (g/mL).
In another way, the extractability index percentage was calculated according to the following equation, bearing in mind the total oil content (in fresh weight basis measured by NIR):
Extractability Index (%) = 100 × Oil content yield (%)/Total Oil content (fresh weight) (%)

2.4. Oil Quality Parameters Determination

2.4.1. Total Phenolic Compounds Content

Total phenolic content (TPC) of the virgin olive oil samples was determined according to the Folin–Ciocalteau spectrophotometric method [15]. Briefly, 0.5 g of oil was extracted successively with three portions of 2 mL of methanol/water (80:20, v/v), vortexed, and centrifuged. An aliquot (0.1 mL) of the methanolic extract was mixed with 0.5 mL of Folin–Ciocalteau reagent and 1 mL of 20% sodium carbonate solution. After incubation for 1 h at room temperature, absorbance was measured at 765 nm using a UV–Vis spectrophotometer (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA, USA.). Results were expressed as mg of caffeic acid equivalents per Kg of oil (mg CAE/Kg).

2.4.2. Oxidative Stability

The oxidative stability of the obtained oils was assessed in a 743 Rancimat (Metrohm, Herisau, Switzerland) eight-channel instrument [16]. In total, 2.5 g of oil was placed in each of the Rancimat channels. A continuous airstream was introduced through the oil solution at 10 L/h, and the system temperature was established at 100 °C. Changes in conductivity were caused by the formation of volatile organic acids, mainly formic acid, and were measured automatically and continuously. The peroxidation curve was recorded, and the inflection point was selected as the induction time (IT, expressed in hours). A high IT value indicates oxidative stability in the sample. The Rancimat test was used as an accelerated and standardized method to compare the relative oxidative resistance of the oils and not to estimate shelf life under real storage conditions.

2.4.3. Free Acidity

Free fatty acid content was determined according to the official method of the International Olive Council (IOC) [17], expressed as a percentage of oleic acid (% oleic acid). All measurements were performed in triplicate.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

All analyses were performed in triplicate. All data were analyzed using XLSTAT software version 2024.4.0.1424 (Addinsoft, New York, NY, USA). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to assess the effect of ripening stage on each parameter. Tukey’s post hoc test (p < 0.05) was used to determine statistically significant differences between means. Results are expressed as mean value ± standard deviation. Distinct letters in tables and figures indicate significant differences among ripening stages.

3. Results and Discussion

Parameters related to fruit health and to the technological and quality traits of the resulting virgin olive oils—including oil content (dry basis), extractability, total phenolic compounds, oxidative stability, and free acidity—were evaluated in four cultivars at three ripening stages (green, veraison, and ripe).

3.1. Variation in the Sanitary Status of Olives During Ripening

The sanitary status of the olives, assessed as the percentage of healthy fruits, showed a clear and consistent decline as ripening progressed across the four cultivars studied. At early maturity stages, the proportion of healthy fruits was high, reflecting the generally intact external condition of the olives and the low incidence of physiological defects or pathogenic symptoms [18]. Damage caused by major olive pests—including Bactrocera oleae and Prays oleae—as well as fungal infections such as Colletotrichum spp., became more frequent in fruits with weakened cell structures and altered moisture dynamics [19,20]. These biotic stresses significantly contributed to the reduction in the proportion of fruits classified as healthy.
This reduction was associated with progressive fruit softening, skin weakening, and early tissue degradation occurring during ripening. These structural changes facilitate pest penetration and oviposition, while increasing moisture gradients and nutrient availability favor microbial and fungal development. In addition, ripening-related biochemical changes, including cell wall polysaccharide degradation and a decline in defensive phenolic compounds, reduce the natural resistance of the fruit [18]. Consequently, pest incidence and disease symptoms became more pronounced at advanced ripening stages, particularly in overripe fruits, which were highly susceptible to damage by key olive pests (e.g., Bactrocera oleae, Prays oleae) and fungal infections. As a result, all cultivars exhibited a marked decline in sanitary status with ripening, although with cultivar-dependent differences.
All four cultivars exhibited a clear decline in sanitary status as ripening progressed, although the rate and magnitude of deterioration differed substantially among them. Additionally, the sharp reduction at full maturity reflects the weakening of skin tissues and enhanced microbial colonization reported in late-harvest olives [18].
‘Arbequina’ (Table 1) maintained very high proportions of healthy fruits at early and intermediate maturity (99.83 ± 0.41–98.17 ± 3.60%), showing only a significant reduction at advanced ripening (80.17 ± 14.43%), mainly due to damage caused by Bactrocera oleae. This suggests a relatively good tolerance to late-season physiological degradation and biotic stress.
‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’ (Table 2) also preserved high sanitary levels at the green and veraison stages (97.44 ± 2.65 – 99.00 ± 1.58%), without significant differences between both MI, but showed a sharper decline at full maturity, falling to 65.00 ± 15.03%. mainly due to damage caused by Bactrocera oleae. This indicates greater sensitivity to cellular weakening and a higher susceptibility to pest and fungal attacks at advanced ripening.
‘Morisca’ (Table 3) was the most affected cultivar, with a pronounced decline from 99.33 ± 1.66% healthy fruits at the green stage to 75.22 ± 17.33% at veraison (MI 2–3) and a dramatic reduction to only 51.11 ± 17.24% in mature olives, with significant differences between the three MI. The steep deterioration is consistent with the known vulnerability of this cultivar to dehydration, softening, and increased pathogen incidence, mainly due to damage caused by Bactrocera oleae and, to a lesser degree, by Sphaeropsis dalmatica.
‘Picual’ (Table 4) shows the highest sanitary integrity at two early ripening stages, with values of 98.56 ± 2.13% (MI 0–1) and 99.67 ± 0.71% (MI 2–3) (no significant difference was found). At the intermediate stage, ‘Picual’ reached 69.78 ± 17.17%, indicating a clear loss of fruit integrity as ripening progressed. This decline was mainly due to damage caused by Bactrocera oleae. Thus, ‘Picual’ exhibits intermediate vulnerability at full maturity.

3.2. Fruit Olive Physicochemical Characterization and Oil Content

Olive fruit development typically follows a double-sigmoid growth pattern [19]. This process results from a complex interplay of genetic, metabolic, hormonal, and environmental factors that shape the fruit’s size, form, and oil composition [21]. In our study, fruit weight increased throughout ripening: from 2.36 ± 1.14 g to 2.63 ± 1.05 g for ‘Arbequina’ (Table 1); from 4.03 ± 1.80 g to 4.58 ± 1.73 g for ‘Picual’ (Table 4), a trend previously reported for other cultivars [22]. However, the ‘Morisca’ (Table 3) and ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’ (Table 2) cultivars exhibited a reduction in fruit weight during ripening (from 4.15 ± 1.82 g to 3.28 ± 1.56 g and from 3.62 ± 1.89 g to 3.14 ± 1.43 g, respectively), likely associated with changes in moisture content. Nonetheless, the variations observed in both moisture and fruit weight across the four cultivars were not statistically significant throughout the MI (0 to 5).
Oil content expressed on a dry basis (DBOC) increased steadily across ripening, reflecting the expected lipid accumulation, moving from 36.84 ± 2.33% to 49.51 ± 2.18% for ‘Arbequina’. Extractability decreased progressively with ripening, which is consistent with the increase in fruit moisture and emulsifying colloidal compounds that hinder oil release [23]. ‘Arbequina’ is known to show reduced extractability when harvested late due to higher moisture and stronger oil–water emulsions. No significant difference was found between early and late MI. However, this parameter decreased from 59.82 ± 12.08% (at 0.21 MI) to 48.42 ± 11.13% in fully ripe olives (2.54 MI).
‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’ had a moisture content that showed an increasing trend toward partially ripe MI, then decreased at advanced ripening. DBOC values rose from 35.10 ± 2.77% to 44.26 ± 6.01%, indicating progressive oil accumulation. There were significant differences between veraison and fully ripe MI. Extractability increased steadily through ripening (64.10 ± 8.47% to 67.97 ± 16.73%), suggesting progressive weakening of mesocarp tissue and greater efficiency in oil release during malaxation. However, no significant differences were found between early and late MI. This cultivar showed intermediate extractability performance compared to the others.
‘Morisca’ had moisture content that remained relatively stable (51.45 ± 4.48–52.17 ± 6.96%) without significant differences, indicating that weight loss may be driven more by tissue degradation than dehydration. However, DBOC increased from 37.25 ± 3.06% (0.10 MI) to 49.36 ± 1.86% (4.49 MI), placing ‘Morisca’ among the cultivars with the greatest increment in oil content during ripening. Extractability improved markedly from 66.02 ± 5.24% to 71.72 ± 11.98%, consistent with substantial cell wall breakdown and increased oil liberation at advanced maturity. Among the cultivars studied, ‘Morisca’ demonstrated one of the greatest improvements in extractability with ripening.
‘Picual’ displayed moisture values of 48.40 ± 5.39%, 56.42 ± 3.85%, and 54.24 ± 3.85%, showing a clear increase from the green to the intermediate stage, followed by a slight decline at full maturity. This pattern reflects the capacity of ‘Picual’ fruits to retain high water content under certain ripening conditions. Dry basis oil content (DBOC) increased significantly throughout the ripening stages, with values of 35.48 ± 1.86%, 44.64 ± 2.55%, and 47.45 ± 3.29%, consistent with the well-known high-oil profile of this cultivar. Extractability remained stable and high across ripening, with values of 70.73 ± 3.43%, 70.13 ± 7.29%, and 72.32 ± 14.76%, and there were no significant differences among MI. Compared with the other cultivars, ‘Picual’ exhibited higher extractability and competitive oil content, reinforcing its suitability for industrial oil production and its consistency under varying ripening conditions.
Differences in extractability index among cultivars and ripening stages can be explained by cultivar-dependent biochemical and microstructural changes occurring in the olive mesocarp during maturation. Ripening is associated with cell wall remodeling, particularly the solubilization and depolymerization of pectic polysaccharides, which reduces tissue rigidity and facilitates the release of oil droplets during mechanical extraction. Experimental studies have shown that degradation of cell wall polysaccharides increases the amount of water-soluble pectins and improves oil release efficiency, highlighting the key role of pectin structure in extractability.
In addition, microstructural studies of olive mesocarp during maturation have reported progressive disorganization of cell walls and middle lamellae, together with changes in cell adhesion and tissue porosity, which influence the ability of oil droplets to coalesce and separate from the aqueous phase [24]. These structural changes do not necessarily progress at the same rate in all cultivars, which may account for the contrasting extractability trends observed between ‘Arbequina’ and the other cultivars evaluated.
Furthermore, polysaccharides released from cell walls can contribute to the formation and stabilization of oil–water emulsions in the olive paste, reducing effective oil separation during centrifugation. The presence of soluble pectins and other macromolecules in the aqueous phase has been linked to increased emulsion stability and reduced oil recovery [25]. Therefore, cultivar-specific differences in both the extent of cell wall degradation and the composition of soluble polysaccharides may explain why extractability decreased with ripening in ‘Arbequina’, while ‘Morisca’ and ‘Picual’ maintained or improved oil release under the same processing conditions.

3.3. Oil Quality Parameters

In order to determine oil quality parameters, total phenolic compounds (TPC), oxidative stability, and free acidity were measured.
The evolution of quality parameters in ‘Arbequina’ VOO throughout the ripening process revealed significant changes, particularly in phenolic content (Table 1 and Figure 2). Total phenolic compounds decreased significantly from 322.84 ± 130.71 mg/L at the green stage to 149.66 ± 71.73 mg/L at full maturity, representing a 53.64% reduction. This decline is consistent with previous studies reporting that phenolic compounds tend to decrease as fruit ripening progresses due to enzymatic degradation and dilution effects associated with oil accumulation [26,27]. The intermediate stage showed a phenolic content of 207.62 ± 89.39 mg/L, confirming a progressive degradation pattern throughout maturation.
Oxidative stability followed a similar declining trend, although the differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Values ranged from 54.85 ± 14.81 h at the green stage to 41.39 ± 11.62 h at full maturity, representing a 24.54% decrease. Despite this reduction, all values remained well above the minimum threshold of 20 h recommended for extra virgin olive oil quality [28]. The correlation between phenolic content and oxidative stability was evident, as phenolic compounds are known to act as natural antioxidants, protecting the oil against oxidative degradation [29,30]. Although higher induction times are generally associated with greater oxidative stability during storage, the Rancimat values obtained at 100 °C should be interpreted only as indicators of relative oxidative resistance among samples, rather than as predictors of shelf life at ambient temperature.
Acidity levels remained remarkably low throughout ripening, with values of 0.10 ± 0.02% and 0.11 ± 0.01% oleic acid at green and veraison, respectively, increasing significantly to 0.21 ± 0.08% at full maturity (p < 0.05). Nevertheless, all values were well below the 0.8% limit established for extra virgin olive oil classification according to EU regulations [31]. The increase in acidity at advanced maturity stages is typically associated with increased lipolytic enzyme activity and potential fruit damage during prolonged hanging time on the tree [32].
‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’ VOO exhibited the highest phenolic content among all varieties studied (Table 2 and Figure 3). At the green stage, total phenolic compounds reached 708.61 ± 91.04 mg/L, more than double the values observed in ‘Arbequina’ at similar maturity. A significant decrease (p < 0.05) was observed at the veraison stage (530.88 ± 119.69 mg/L), with values stabilizing thereafter (526.35 ± 160.52 mg/L at full maturity). This variety retained 74.3% of its initial phenolic content at full maturity, demonstrating better preservation of these bioactive compounds compared to ‘Arbequina’ oils.
The exceptional phenolic richness of ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’ VOO was directly reflected in its oxidative stability, which was the highest among all cultivars tested. At the green stage, oxidative stability reached 137.64 ± 16.45 h, decreasing significantly to 100.78 ± 23.09 h at the veraison stage and 90.28 ± 27.57 h at full maturity (p < 0.05). Despite this reduction, the values at all maturity stages were substantially higher than those observed in other cultivars, confirming the superior oxidative resistance of this cultivar [33]. This remarkable stability can be attributed not only to the high phenolic content but also to the specific phenolic profile characteristic of this cultivar, which may include compounds with particularly strong antioxidant activity such as oleuropein and its derivatives [34,35].
Acidity remained exceptionally low and stable throughout ripening, with values ranging from 0.13 ± 0.01% to 0.21 ± 0.15% oleic acid, with no significant differences detected between maturity stages (p > 0.05). These results indicate excellent fruit integrity and optimal processing conditions, as well as the genetic predisposition of this variety to maintain low free fatty acid levels [36].
‘Morisca’ VOO exhibited moderate phenolic content with remarkable stability throughout the ripening process (Table 3 and Figure 4). Total phenolic compounds ranged from 304.67 ± 83.38 mg/L at the green stage (MI = 0.10) to 248.98 ± 154.12 mg/L at full maturity (MI = 4.14), with no statistically significant differences between stages (p > 0.05). This retention of 81.7% of initial phenolic content suggests that ‘Morisca’ possesses either lower polyphenol oxidase activity or a phenolic composition more resistant to degradation during ripening [37].
Oxidative stability values remained consistent across all maturity stages, ranging from 40.04 ± 17.33 h to 42.99 ± 28.72 h, with no significant difference observed. These values, while lower than those of ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’ and ‘Picual’, were comparable to ‘Arbequina’ and remained within acceptable ranges for extra virgin olive oil quality. The stable oxidative behavior throughout ripening is noteworthy and suggests that ‘Morisca’ oils maintain consistent antioxidant protection regardless of harvest timing [38].
Acidity of ‘Morisca’ VOO showed a slight but significant increase from 0.09 ± 0.01% oleic acid at turning ripe to 0.16 ± 0.08% at full maturity (p < 0.05), although the green stage value (0.11 ± 0.01%) did not differ significantly from either. All acidity values remained well within extra virgin olive oil specifications. The relatively low acidity increase during ripening indicates good fruit quality and appropriate handling practices [39].
‘Picual’ VOO displayed unique and remarkable behavior among all cultivars studied, being the only variety that showed an increase in total phenolic compounds during ripening (Table 4 and Figure 5). Phenolic content increased from 408.62 ± 142.13 mg/L at the green stage (MI = 0.11) to 475.59 ± 174.46 mg/L at full maturity (MI = 4.44), representing a 16.4% increase, although these differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). This unusual pattern contradicts the general trend observed in most olive varieties and has been previously reported for the ‘Picual’ cultivar in specific growing conditions [40,41]. This phenomenon may be attributed to the biosynthesis of certain phenolic compounds during fruit ripening, changes in the oil-to-water ratio that concentrate phenolics in the oil phase, or the transformation of complex phenolic forms into simpler, extractable compounds.
The oxidative stability of ‘Picual’ oils was exceptionally high and remained stable throughout ripening, with values ranging from 100.67 ± 39.70 h at the green stage to 109.37 ± 29.41 h at full maturity, with no significant differences between stages. These values were comparable to those of ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’ oils and substantially higher than ‘Arbequina’ and ‘Morisca’ varieties. The combination of high and stable phenolic content with excellent oxidative stability confirms ‘Picual’ oils as one of the most stable olive oils, particularly suitable for long-term storage [42,43].
Acidity levels in ‘Picual’ oils remained remarkably low throughout ripening, ranging from 0.10 ± 0.02% to 0.13 ± 0.01% oleic acid. Interestingly, the lowest acidity was observed at the turning ripe stage (0.10 ± 0.02%), which differed significantly from the green stage (0.13 ± 0.01%), while the mature stage showed an intermediate value (0.12 ± 0.02%). All values were well below the legal limit for extra virgin classification, indicating excellent fruit quality and optimal oil extraction conditions [44].

3.4. Comparative Analysis and Practical Implications

The comparative analysis of oils from the four cultivars revealed distinct quality profiles with important practical implications for olive oil production.
The sanitary status of olives experienced significant deterioration as ripening progressed across all evaluated cultivars, with ‘Morisca’ being the most susceptible (declining from 99.33% to 51.11% healthy fruits) and ‘Arbequina’ showing the greatest tolerance (maintaining 80.17% at full maturity). This finding underscores the critical importance of monitoring sanitary status as a limiting factor in harvest timing determination, particularly for susceptible cultivars.
Oil content on a dry basis showed consistent increases during ripening in all cultivars, increasing from 35.10 to 36.84% at early stages to between 44.26 and 49.51% at full maturity. However, extractability exhibited cultivar-specific patterns, indicating that maximizing industrial yield requires differentiated harvest strategies according to cultivar.
Total phenolic compounds, key components for oxidative stability and health benefits, exhibited markedly different behaviors among cultivars. ‘Arbequina’ showed the most pronounced reduction (53.6%), while ‘Picual’ presented atypical behavior with a 16.4% increase during ripening. This result suggests that ‘Picual’ offers greater flexibility in harvest scheduling without compromising phenolic content, while ‘Arbequina’ and ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’ require early harvest to maximize these bioactive compounds.
Oxidative stability, a fundamental parameter for oil shelf life, was superior in ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’ (90.28–137.64 h) and ‘Picual’ (100.67–109.37 h) oils, while ‘Arbequina’ and ‘Morisca’ exhibited moderate values (40.04–54.85 h). These results have direct implications for commercialization and storage, suggesting that ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’ and ‘Picual’ oils are more suitable for prolonged storage.
All oils maintained acidity levels well below the 0.8% limit established for extra virgin olive oil classification (0.09–0.21% oleic acid) throughout the ripening period, confirming the excellent quality of raw material and processing conditions.
‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’ and ‘Picual’ VOO emerged as superior varieties in terms of phenolic content and oxidative stability, making them particularly suitable for producing premium extra virgin olive oils with extended shelf life and enhanced health benefits [45,46]. ‘Arbequina’, while showing lower phenolic content and oxidative stability, maintained acceptable quality parameters and is valued for its mild sensory characteristics and early bearing capacity [47].
The maturity index (MI) demonstrated a significant influence on quality parameters, particularly for ‘Arbequina’ and ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’ oils, where early harvest at green or turning ripe stages maximized phenolic content and oxidative stability. However, this must be balanced against yield considerations, as oil content typically increases with fruit maturity [48]. For ‘Morisca’ and ‘Picual’ cultivars, the stability of quality parameters across ripening stages provides greater flexibility in harvest timing without compromising oil quality.
All oils from different cultivars maintained acidity levels well within extra virgin olive oil specifications throughout ripening, indicating appropriate agricultural practices and fruit handling. The slight increases in acidity observed at advanced maturity stages in some varieties underscore the importance of timely harvest and rapid processing to minimize hydrolytic degradation [49].
These results provide valuable information for olive growers and oil producers in optimizing harvest timing according to desired quality profiles and market positioning. The selection of variety and harvest stage should consider the balance between yield, quality parameters, and target market requirements, with early harvest recommended for producing oils with maximum health benefits and oxidative stability, particularly for ‘Arbequina’ and ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’ virgin olive oils.

4. Conclusions

This study provides comprehensive evidence on the impact of ripening stage on virgin olive oil quality across four commercially important cultivars in southwestern Spain. The results demonstrate that optimal harvest timing must be determined by considering multiple interrelated factors, including fruit sanitary status, oil content, and desired quality parameters.
In conclusion, this study demonstrates that there is no universally optimal harvest time, but rather it must be adapted according to cultivar and desired quality profile. Early harvest is recommended for ‘Arbequina’ and ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’ when phenolic content and oxidative stability are prioritized, while ‘Morisca’ and ‘Picual’ offer greater flexibility in harvest scheduling. These findings provide valuable tools for optimizing decision-making in olive grove management in southwestern Spain, enabling producers to align harvest practices with target market quality objectives.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, and data curation, M.A.M.-C. and D.C.-M.; investigation, M.A.M.-C., A.G.-T., H.M.-D., and D.C.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.M.-C.; writing—review and editing, M.A.M.-C., D.C.-M., and H.M.-D.; supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition, M.A.M.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the European FEDER Fund and Junta de Extremadura, grant number GR24122 (AGA002), 85% co-financed by the European Union, European Regional Development Fund, and the Regional Government of Extremadura.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ANOVAAnalysis of Variance
AYAbencor Yield
DBOCDry Basis Oil Content
EIExtractability Index
FAsFatty Acids
IOCInternational Olive Council
MIMaturity Index
NIRNear-Infrared Spectroscopy
TPCTotal Phenolic Compounds
VOOVirgin Olive Oil

References

  1. Jimenez-Lopez, C.; Carpena, M.; Lourenco-Lopes, C.; Gallardo-Gomez, M.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Barba, F.J.; Prieto, M.A.; Simal-Gandara, J. Bioactive Compounds and Quality of Extra Virgin Olive Oil. Foods 2020, 9, 1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Aparicio, R.; Harwood, J. Handbook of Olive Oil; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  3. Boskou, D. (Ed.) Olive Fruit, Table Olives, and Olive Oil Bioactive Constituents. In Olive and Olive Oil Bioactive Constituents; AOCS Press: Urbana, IL, USA, 2015; pp. 1–30. [Google Scholar]
  4. Carrapiso, A.I.; Rubio, A.; Sánchez-Casas, J.; Martín, L.; Martínez-Cañas, M.; de Miguel, C. Effect of the Organic Production and the Harvesting Method on the Chemical Quality and the Volatile Compounds of Virgin Olive Oil over the Harvesting Season. Foods 2020, 9, 1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Beltrán, G.; Uceda, M.; Jiménez-Márquez, A.; Aguilera, M. Olive oil extractability index as a parameter for olive cultivar characterization. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2003, 83, 503–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mikołajczak, N.; Tańska, M.; Ogrodowska, D. Phenolic compounds in plant oils: A review of composition, analytical methods, and effect on oxidative stability. Trends Food Sci. Tech. 2021, 113, 110–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Novoselić, A.; Klisović, D.; Lukić, I.; Lukić, M.; Brkić Bubola, K. The Use of Olive Leaves in Buža Olive Cultivar Oil Production: Exploring the Impact on Oil Yield and Chemical Composition. Agriculture 2021, 11, 917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cabezas, J.M.; Alza, J.O.; de la Rosa, R.; Santos, C.; del Río-Celestino, M.; Lorite, I.J. Modeling the Impact of Future Temperature Increases on Olive Oil Accumulation Patterns in the Iberian Peninsula. Agronomy 2025, 15, 2262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Casas, J.S.; De Miguel Gordillo, C.; Osorio Bueno, E.; Marín Expósito, J.; Fuentes Mendoza, M.; Ardila Hierro, T.; Gallardo González, L.; Martínez Cano, M. Characteristics of virgin olive oils from the olive zone of Extremadura (Spain), and an approximation to their varietal origin. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2009, 86, 933–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Franco, M.N.; Sánchez, J.; De Miguel, C.; Martínez, M.; Martín-Vertedor, D. Influence of the Fruit’s Ripeness on Virgin Olive Oil Quality. J. Oleo Sci. 2015, 64, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación (MAPA). Encuesta sobre Superficies y Rendimientos de Cultivos (ESYRCE). 2024. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-agrarias/agricultura/esyrce/ (accessed on 16 December 2025).
  12. Uceda, M.; Frías, L. Épocas de recolección. Evolución del contenido graso del fruto y de la composición y calidad del aceite. In La Mecanización de la Recolección; FAO-PNUD: Córdoba, Spain, 1985; pp. 37–68. [Google Scholar]
  13. International Olive Council. Guide for the Determination of the Characteristics of Oil-Olives (COI/OH/Doc. No. 1); International Olive Council: Madrid, Spain, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  14. Martínez, F.; Moyano, M.J.; Alba, J.; Ruiz, M.A.; Hidalgo, F.; Heredia, F.J. Método rápido de obtención de aceite de oliva virgen para determinación de acidez. Grasas y Aceites 1999, 50, 122–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  15. Gutfinger, T. Polyphenols in olive oils. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 1981, 58, 966–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gutiérrez, F. Determinación de la estabilidad oxidativa de aceites de oliva vírgenes: Comparación entre el método del oxígeno activo A.O.M y el método Rancimat. Grasas y Aceites 1989, 40, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  17. International Olive Council. Method for the Determination of Free Fatty Acids, cold Method (COI/T.20/Doc. No. 34/Rev. 1); International Olive Council: Madrid, Spain, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  18. Dag, A.; Kerem, Z.; Yogev, N.; Zipori, I.; Lavee, S.; Ben-David, E. Influence of time of harvest and maturity index on olive oil yield and quality. Sci. Hortic. 2011, 127, 358–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Moral, J.; Bouhmidi, K.; Trapero, A. Influence of Fruit Maturity, Cultivar Susceptibility, and Inoculation Method on Infection of Olive Fruit by Colletotrichum acutatum. Plant Dis. 2008, 92, 1421–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Valenčič, V.; Butinar, B.; Podgornik, M.; Bučar-Miklavčič, M. The Effect of Olive Fruit Fly Bactrocera oleae (Rossi) Infestation on Certain Chemical Parameters of Produced Olive Oils. Molecules 2021, 26, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Khosravi, A.; Zucchini, M.; Giorgi, V.; Mancini, A.; Neri, D. Continuous Monitoring of Olive Fruit Growth by Automatic Extensimeter in Response to Vapor Pressure Deficit from Pit Hardening to Harvest. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Emmanouilidou, M.G.; Koukourikou-Petridou, M.; Gerasopoulos, D.; Kyriacou, M.C. Evolution of Physicochemical Constitution and Cultivar-Differential Maturity Configuration in Olive (Olea europaea L.) Fruit. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 272, 109516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Clodoveo, M.L. Malaxation: Influence on virgin olive oil quality. Past, present and future—An overview. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 1, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mafra, I.; Lanza, B.; Reis, A.; Marsilio, V.; Campestre, C.; De Angelis, M.; Coimbra, M.A. Effect of ripening on texture, microstructure and cell wall polysaccharide composition of olive fruit (Olea europaea). Physiol. Plant. 2001, 111, 439–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jiménez, A.; Rodríguez, R.; Fernández-Caro, I.; Guillén, R.; Fernández-Bolaños, J.; Heredia, A. Olive Fruit Cell Wall: Degradation of Pectic Polysaccharides during Ripening. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 409–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Beltrán, G.; Aguilera, M.P.; Del Rio, C.; Sanchez, S.; Martinez, L. Influence of fruit ripening process on the natural antioxidant content of Hojiblanca virgin olive oils. Food Chem. 2005, 89, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Servili, M.; Selvaggini, R.; Esposto, S.; Taticchi, A.; Montedoro, G.; Morozzi, G. Health and sensory properties of virgin olive oil hydrophilic phenols: Agronomic and technological aspects of production that affect their occurrence in the oil. J. Chromatogr. A 2004, 1054, 113–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Aparicio, R.; Harwood, J. Handbook of Olive Oil: Analysis and Properties, 2nd ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2013; pp. 1–678. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gutierrez-Rosales, F.; Rios, J.J.; Gomez-Rey, M.L. Main polyphenols in the bitter taste of virgin olive oil. Structural confirmation by on-line high-performance liquid chromatography electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 6021–6025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Carrasco-Pancorbo, A.; Cerretani, L.; Bendini, A.; Segura-Carretero, A.; Del Carlo, M.; Gallina-Toschi, T.; Lercker, G.; Compagnone, D.; Fernández-Gutiérrez, A. Evaluation of the antioxidant capacity of individual phenolic compounds in virgin olive oil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 8918–8925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. European Union. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2104 of 29 July 2022 Supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as Regards Marketing Standards for Olive Oil, and Repealing Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 29/2012. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2022/2104/2024-06-10 (accessed on 17 June 2025).
  32. Kalua, C.M.; Allen, M.S.; Bedgood, D.R.; Bishop, A.G.; Prenzler, P.D.; Robards, K. Olive oil volatile compounds, flavour development and quality: A critical review. Food Chem. 2007, 100, 273–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Salvador, M.D.; Aranda, F.; Fregapane, G. Influence of fruit ripening on ‘Cornicabra’ virgin olive oil quality: A study of four successive crop seasons. Food Chem. 2001, 73, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Visioli, F.; Poli, A.; Gall, C. Antioxidant and other biological activities of phenols from olives and olive oil. Med. Res. Rev. 2002, 22, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bendini, A.; Cerretani, L.; Carrasco-Pancorbo, A.; Gómez-Caravaca, A.M.; Segura-Carretero, A.; Fernández-Gutiérrez, A.; Lercker, G. Phenolic molecules in virgin olive oils: A survey of their sensory properties, health effects, antioxidant activity and analytical methods. An overview of the last decade. Molecules 2007, 12, 1679–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dag, A.; Ben-David, E.; Kerem, Z.; Ben-Gal, A.; Erel, R.; Basheer, L.; Yermiyahu, U. Olive oil composition as a function of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium plant nutrition. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2009, 89, 1871–1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Criado, M.N.; Romero, M.P.; Casanovas, M.; Motilva, M.J. Pigment profile and colour of monovarietal virgin olive oils from Arbequina cultivar obtained during two consecutive crop seasons. Food Chem. 2008, 110, 873–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cert, A.; Moreda, W.; Pérez-Camino, M.C. Chromatographic analysis of minor constituents in vegetable oils. J. Chromatogr. A 2000, 881, 131–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rotondi, A.; Bendini, A.; Cerretani, L.; Mari, M.; Lercker, G.; Gallina Toschi, T. Effect of olive ripening degree on the oxidative stability and organoleptic properties of cv. Nostrana di Brisighella extra virgin olive oil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 3649–3654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gómez-Rico, A.; Salvador, M.D.; Moriana, A.; Pérez, D.; Olmedilla, N.; Ribas, F.; Fregapane, G. Influence of different irrigation strategies in a traditional Cornicabra cv. olive orchard on virgin olive oil composition and quality. Food Chem. 2007, 100, 568–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Uceda, M.; Hermoso, M.; Aguilera, M.P. La calidad del aceite de oliva. In El Cultivo del Olivo, 6th ed.; Barranco, D., Fernández-Escobar, R., Rallo, L., Eds.; Mundi-Prensa: Madrid, Spain, 2008; pp. 699–727. [Google Scholar]
  42. Psomiadou, E.; Tsimidou, M. Stability of virgin olive oil. 1. Autoxidation studies. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 716–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Aparicio, R.; Luna, G. Characterization of monovarietal virgin olive oils. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2002, 104, 614–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. International Olive Council. Trade Standard Applying to Olive Oils and Olive-Pomace Oils (COI/T.15/NC No 3/Rev. 21); International Olive Council: Madrid, Spain, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  45. Covas, M.I.; Nyyssönen, K.; Poulsen, H.E.; Kaikkonen, J.; Zunft, H.J.F.; Kiesewetter, H.; Gaddi, A.; de la Torre, R.; Mursu, J.; Bäumler, H.; et al. The effect of polyphenols in olive oil on heart disease risk factors: A randomized trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2006, 145, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cicerale, S.; Lucas, L.; Keast, R. Biological activities of phenolic compounds present in virgin olive oil. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2010, 11, 458–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Tous, J.; Romero, A.; Hermoso, J.F. New trends in olive orchard design for continuous mechanical harvesting. Adv. Hortic. Sci. 2010, 24, 43–52. [Google Scholar]
  48. Dag, A.; Harlev, G.; Lavee, S.; Zipori, I.; Kerem, Z. Optimizing olive harvest time under hot climatic conditions of Jordan Valley, Israel. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2014, 116, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yousfi, K.; Cert, R.M.; García, J.M. Changes in quality and phenolic compounds of virgin olive oils during objectively described fruit maturation. Eur. Food Res. And Tech. 2006, 223, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foods 15 00726 g001
Figure 1. Olive fruits of the ‘Morisca’ cultivar collected at three ripening stages: maturity index (MI) 0–1, entirely green or yellow; MI 2–3, veraison; and fully ripe MI 4–5.
Figure 1. Olive fruits of the ‘Morisca’ cultivar collected at three ripening stages: maturity index (MI) 0–1, entirely green or yellow; MI 2–3, veraison; and fully ripe MI 4–5.
Foods 15 00726 g001
Foods 15 00726 g002
Figure 2. Total phenolic compounds (TPC) and oxidative stability of ‘Arbequina’ VOO. For each parameter, different letters indicate significant differences between the mean values for each maturity index (MI) (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Total phenolic compounds (TPC) and oxidative stability of ‘Arbequina’ VOO. For each parameter, different letters indicate significant differences between the mean values for each maturity index (MI) (p < 0.05).
Foods 15 00726 g002
Foods 15 00726 g003
Figure 3. Total phenolic compounds (TPC) and oxidative stability of ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’ VOO. For each parameter, different letters indicate significant differences between the mean values for each maturity index (MI) (p < 0.05). Lowercase letters (a, b) refer to TPC, and uppercase letters (A, B) refer to oxidative stability.
Figure 3. Total phenolic compounds (TPC) and oxidative stability of ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’ VOO. For each parameter, different letters indicate significant differences between the mean values for each maturity index (MI) (p < 0.05). Lowercase letters (a, b) refer to TPC, and uppercase letters (A, B) refer to oxidative stability.
Foods 15 00726 g003
Foods 15 00726 g004
Figure 4. Total phenolic compounds (TPC) and oxidative stability of ‘Morisca’ VOO. For each parameter, there are not significant differences between the mean values for each maturity index (MI) (p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Total phenolic compounds (TPC) and oxidative stability of ‘Morisca’ VOO. For each parameter, there are not significant differences between the mean values for each maturity index (MI) (p < 0.05).
Foods 15 00726 g004
Foods 15 00726 g005
Figure 5. Total phenolic compounds (TPC) and oxidative stability of ‘Picual’ VOO. For each parameter, There are not significant differences between the mean values for each maturity index (MI) (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Total phenolic compounds (TPC) and oxidative stability of ‘Picual’ VOO. For each parameter, There are not significant differences between the mean values for each maturity index (MI) (p < 0.05).
Foods 15 00726 g005
Table 1. Evolution of the ‘Arbequina’ olive fruit traits and oil parameters across maturity stages (green, veraison, ripe). Mean values ± standard deviation.
Table 1. Evolution of the ‘Arbequina’ olive fruit traits and oil parameters across maturity stages (green, veraison, ripe). Mean values ± standard deviation.
Maturity Index (MI)
0.21 ± 0.28 (Green)2.54 ± 0.43 (Veraison)3.69 ± 0.43 (Ripe)
Health status (%)99.83 ± 0.41 a98.17 ± 3.60 a80.17 ± 14.43 b
Weight of fruit (g)2.36 ± 1.14 a2.36 ± 1.10 a2.63 ± 1.05 a
Moisture (%)54.70 ± 8.86 a60.52 ± 4.94 a58.75 ± 6.85 a
DBOC (%)36.84 ± 2.33 a47.44 ± 2.78 b49.51 ± 2.18 b
Extractability Index (%)59.82 ± 12.08 a49.04 ± 10.61 a48.42 ± 11.13 a
Acidity (% Oleic acid)0.10 ± 0.02 a0.11 ± 0.01 a0.21 ± 0.08 b
DBOC (dry basis oil content). Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences between the mean values of oil parameters across the maturity index. (p < 0.05).
Table 2. Evolution of the ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’ olive fruit traits and oil parameters across maturity stages (green, veraison, ripe). Mean values ± standard deviation.
Table 2. Evolution of the ‘Manzanilla Carrasqueña’ olive fruit traits and oil parameters across maturity stages (green, veraison, ripe). Mean values ± standard deviation.
Maturity Index (MI)
0.14 ± 0.10 (Green)2.23 ± 0.48 (Veraison)3.94 ± 0.64 (Ripe)
Health status (%)97.44 ± 2.65 a99.00 ± 1.58 a65.00 ± 15.03 b
Weight of fruit (g)3.62 ± 1.89 a2.93 ± 1.32 a3.14 ± 1.43 a
Moisture (%)53.93 ± 4.31 ab58.85 ± 3.39 a51.57 ± 5.97 b
DBOC (%)35.10 ± 2.77 a41.31 ± 3.71 b44.26 ± 6.01 b
Extractability Index (%)64.10 ± 8.47 a59.97 ± 13.45 a67.97 ± 16.73 a
Acidity (% Oleic acid)0.14 ± 0.01 a0.13 ± 0.01 a0.21 ± 0.15 a
DBOC (dry basis oil content). Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences between the mean values of oil parameters across the maturity index. (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Evolution of the ‘Morisca’ olive fruit traits and oil parameters across maturity stages (green, veraison, ripe). Mean values ± standard deviation.
Table 3. Evolution of the ‘Morisca’ olive fruit traits and oil parameters across maturity stages (green, veraison, ripe). Mean values ± standard deviation.
Maturity Index (MI)
0.10 ± 0.04 (Green)2.45 ± 0.24 (Veraison)4.14 ± 0.59 (Ripe)
Health status (%)99.33 ± 1.66 a75.22 ± 17.33 b51.11 ± 17.24 c
Weight of fruit (g)4.15 ± 1.82 a3.37 ± 0.98 a3.28 ± 1.56 a
Moisture (%)51.45 ± 4.48 a56.21 ± 4.01 a52.17 ± 6.96 a
DBOC (%)37.25 ± 3.06 a47.51 ± 2.32 b49.36 ± 1.86 b
Extractability Index (%)66.02 ± 5.24 a66.88 ± 9.35 a71.72 ± 11.98 a
Acidity (% Oleic acid)0.11 ± 0.01 ab0.09 ± 0.01 a0.16 ± 0.08 b
DBOC (dry basis oil content). Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences between the mean values of oil parameters across the maturity index. (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Evolution of the ‘Picual’ olive fruit traits and oil parameters across maturity stages (green, veraison, ripe). Mean values ± standard deviation.
Table 4. Evolution of the ‘Picual’ olive fruit traits and oil parameters across maturity stages (green, veraison, ripe). Mean values ± standard deviation.
Maturity Index (MI)
0.11 ± 0.05 (Green)2.57 ± 0.19 (Veraison)4.44 ± 0.46 (Ripe)
Health status (%)98.56 ± 2.13 a99.67 ± 0.71 a69.78 ± 17.17 b
Weight of fruit (g)4.03 ± 1.80 a4.84 ± 1.30 a4.58 ± 1.73 a
Moisture (%)48.40 ± 5.39 a56.42 ± 3.85 b54.24 ± 3.85 b
DBOC (%)35.48 ± 1.86 a44.64 ± 2.55 b47.45 ± 3.29 b
Extractability Index (%)70.73 ± 3.43 a70.13 ± 7.29 a72.32 ± 14.76 a
Acidity (% Oleic acid)0.13 ± 0.01 a0.10 ± 0.02 b0.12 ± 0.02 ab
DBOC (dry basis oil content). Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences between the mean values of oil parameters across the maturity index. (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Martínez-Cañas, M.A.; González-Trejo, A.; Manai-Djebali, H.; Cortés-Montaña, D. Trade-Offs Between Fruit Health, Oil Accumulation, and Bioactive Retention During Olive Fruit Ripening in Four Spanish Olive Cultivars. Foods 2026, 15, 726. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15040726

AMA Style

Martínez-Cañas MA, González-Trejo A, Manai-Djebali H, Cortés-Montaña D. Trade-Offs Between Fruit Health, Oil Accumulation, and Bioactive Retention During Olive Fruit Ripening in Four Spanish Olive Cultivars. Foods. 2026; 15(4):726. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15040726

Chicago/Turabian Style

Martínez-Cañas, Manuel A., Ana González-Trejo, Hédia Manai-Djebali, and Daniel Cortés-Montaña. 2026. "Trade-Offs Between Fruit Health, Oil Accumulation, and Bioactive Retention During Olive Fruit Ripening in Four Spanish Olive Cultivars" Foods 15, no. 4: 726. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15040726

APA Style

Martínez-Cañas, M. A., González-Trejo, A., Manai-Djebali, H., & Cortés-Montaña, D. (2026). Trade-Offs Between Fruit Health, Oil Accumulation, and Bioactive Retention During Olive Fruit Ripening in Four Spanish Olive Cultivars. Foods, 15(4), 726. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15040726

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop