The Impact of Double

Harvesting on
Victorian Peppermint
Crop Productivity

A report for the

Rural Industries Research
and Development Corporation

by Fred Bienvenu

October 2002

RIRDC Publication No 02/131

RIRDC Projects No VMP-1A and VMP-2A
© 2002 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.
All rights reserved.

ISBN 0642 58530 X

ISSN 1440-6845

The Impact of Double Harvesting on Victorian Peppermint Crop Productivity

Publication No. 02/131
Project Nos. VMP-1A and VMP-2A

The views expressed and the conclusions reached in this publication are those of the author and not
necessarily those of persons consulted. RIRDC shall not be responsible in any way whatsoever to any person
who relies in whole or in part on the contents of this report.

This publication is copyright. However, RIRDC encourages wide dissemination of its research, providing the
Corporation is clearly acknowledged. For any other enquiries concerning reproduction, contact the
Publications Manager on phone 02 6272 3186.

Researcher Contact Details

Fred Bienvenu, Principal Researcher,

Agriculture Victoria, NRE Ovens
03 57311222
03 57311223
Email: fred.bienvenu@nre.vic.gov.au

In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form.

RIRDC Contact Details

Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
Level 1, AMA House
42 Macquarie Street
BARTON ACT 2600
PO Box 4776
KINGSTON ACT 2604

Phone: 02 6272 4539

Fax: 02 6272 5877
Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.au.
Website: http://www.rirdc.gov.au

Published in October 2002

Printed on environmentally friendly paper by Canprint

ii
Foreword

This project examines the role of harvest timing, double harvest techniques and nitrogen nutrition on
the yield of peppermint oil and the combined effects on peppermint oil composition, for peppermint
crops produced under Victorian conditions. It seeks to determine whether double harvesting is
sustainable and can be used to increase oil production in Southern Australia.

Changes to the requirements of the flavour and fragrance industry across the world are examined to
understand the position of Australia’s mint producers in the worldwide context. The current trend is
towards the engineering of custom peppermint oils. This allows the use of “building block” oils.
Peppermint oil producers will need to produce oils that fit the new markets.

This report covers experimental work done through RIRDC projects VMP-1A and VMP-2A. These
projects were funded from RIRDC Core Funds that are provided by the Federal Government.

This report, a new addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 800 research publications, forms part
of our Essential Oils and Plant Extracts R&D program, which aims to support the growth of a
profitable and sustainable essential oils and natural plant extracts industry in Australia.

Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our
website:

• downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/Index.htm
• purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/cat/contents.html

Simon Hearn
Managing Director
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

iii
Acknowledgements
The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) for their support for this and
other essential oil projects.

Michael Morgan – Manager NRE-Ovens, for his untiring support with planning and operation of the
research projects carried out at NRE Ovens.

Brendan Ralph – for analytical chemical determinations on peppermint oil from field and commercial
sites.

Helen Morgan – for field harvest and laboratory distillations at NRE Ovens and on commercial
properties.

Alandi Durling - for field harvest and laboratory distillations at NRE Ovens and on commercial
properties.

Jeff Bienvenu – for field study assistance and harvest collection.

Corryong Essential Oils and VicMint Pty. Ltd. for the agronomic care of the peppermint sites and
access to their respective properties.

iv
Contents
Foreword ................................................................................................................................................ iii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ iv
Contents................................................................................................................................................... v
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... vi
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Background, relevance and potential benefits..................................................................................... 1
Major Victorian Peppermint Producers............................................................................................... 1
Objectives................................................................................................................................................ 3
Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 4
(i) Agronomic conditions required for Double-Harvest ...................................................................... 4
(ii)Comparison of source of Nitrogen on yield/quality ....................................................................... 5
(iii) Harvest Loss ................................................................................................................................. 6
(iv) Alternative Harvest Techniques ................................................................................................... 6
(v) Sap nitrate testing in Peppermint ................................................................................................... 6
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
General Background............................................................................................................................ 8
Comparisons of Nitrogen Sources..................................................................................................... 17
Harvest Loss ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Alternative Harvest Techniques ........................................................................................................ 22
Sap nitrate testing in Peppermint....................................................................................................... 23
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 24
Impact of double harvest on oil yield ................................................................................................ 24
Impact of Double Harvest on oil quality ........................................................................................... 24
Theoretic considerations on Oil Quality ........................................................................................... 24
Seasonal Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 25
Impact of the rate of nitrogen on oil yield......................................................................................... 25
Impact of the rate of nitrogen on oil quality...................................................................................... 25
Harvest Loss ...................................................................................................................................... 25
Alternative Harvest Techniques ........................................................................................................ 26
Sap nitrate testing in Peppermint....................................................................................................... 27
Markets for double harvest peppermint oils...................................................................................... 28
Implications and Recommendations...................................................................................................... 31
References ............................................................................................................................................. 32
Appendix ............................................................................................................................................... 33

v
Executive Summary
Background
The practice of double harvesting peppermint oil crops is employed in the USA where special
circumstances exist. Higher yields can be achieved but care needs to be taken to ensure that
rootstock depletion does not affect the ensuing year’s oil potential. Most oil producers in the USA,
except in parts of the state of Washington, employ double harvesting only in the final year of a
rotation.

The Victorian Peppermint Industry Strategy Plan, adopted by growers in May 1995, focused on
maximising yield of peppermint oil. This project was based on the assumption that under Victorian
conditions double harvesting would significantly increase sustainable yields. Further it was
considered that the products from double harvest could be blended to produce a similar unit value to
normal harvested peppermint.

This project aimed to establish the agronomic production conditions and harvest times which
maximise “yield and productivity” of peppermint crops produced under Victorian conditions.
Further, the project sought to establish market acceptability of blended oils and hence determine the
feasibility of double harvesting a strategy to maximise returns.

In the presence of adequate water, nitrogen is the key nutrient that can be used to modify growth
characteristics, time to physiological maturity, oil yield and composition. As a consequence this
project focussed on the potential to use nitrogen to manipulate crop growth, oil yield and oil
composition under a number of harvest scenarios comparing double harvest regimes with “normal”
harvest. This was determined by GC analysis of samples of oil from peppermint herbage.

Double harvest research plots were established on sites on a research field and on a large-scale
commercial property. Times of harvest coupled with double harvest treatments were set up and
overlaid with nitrogen treatments. The nitrogen treatments included four rates of application which
covered 100, 200, 300, and 500 kg/ha actual N. The highest rate was deliberately chosen to be “over
the top”.

A further trial was established to examine the role of sources of nitrogen fertiliser. Ammonium
nitrate and urea were employed at equivalent rates of 100, 200, 300 and 500 kg/ha actual N.
Treatments were applied in six split equal applications with dates from the middle of November until
the middle of January

Generally, no long-term benefits were seen in the exercising of double harvesting peppermint oil
crops in this study. In most seasons during the study the yield under a double harvest regime
aggregated to less than that for a normal single harvest. The highest increase over a single harvest
was 27% in only one year. In later years there was a substantial loss of yield due to double harvest.
The plots were positioned on the same sites for the duration of the project to test the longer-term
effects of the continual removal of photosynthetic material. In the fourth year, 65% of the plots
marked for double harvest were void of any herbage at all.

In general the optimal nitrogen application was between the 200 and 300 kg/ha per year actual N.
This provides a practical ceiling for effective nitrogen applications each season for peppermint crops
grown under Victorian conditions. Higher rates of nitrogen application can have negative effects
both economically and environmentally. In both the double harvest and the source of nitrogen trials
there was a very clear inverse relationship between nitrogen and menthofuran. Menthofuran is the
main negative component in peppermint oil and it must be kept to a minimum to achieve premium
prices and status. Results also showed that higher rates of nitrogen can cause oil yield depression,
but the extent tended to be affected by seasonal factors.

vi
Problems were encountered when distilling in the cooler months. The cooler conditions caused later
oil “break-through” and made “end-point” determination more difficult. This has the potential to
increase costs and reduce yield during late harvests.

The Cardy Sap/Stem Nitrate meter (or similar) has been used successfully for many years to provide
an “in-the-field” indicator of nitrogen status of a wide range of growing crops from cereals to tree
crops through out the world. However, due to the inability to obtain consistently reproducible results
it was concluded that the Cardy meter was not suitable for prolonged use in the peppermint industry
as an indicator of nitrogen status.

Quality of locally produced peppermint oil is situated in the upper levels in the world market place.
Double harvesting of peppermint by necessity brings into question the economic value of various oils
as the profile of an early cut oil differs greatly from that of a late cut oil, as can the profile of a single
normal cut vary from a double cut oil.

The results clearly indicate that double harvesting of Victorian peppermint crops is not a sustainable
economic practice. Continuing double harvest across successive seasons will result in a rapid
depletion of yield. Quality of oils from double harvest regimes was generally inferior to normal and on
an open market would be of lower value.

If maximisation of peppermint oil yield is a key goal of producers then significant savings on losses
could be made at the harvest distillation stage through modification of harvest techniques and
adoption of better procedures for preventing over drying and therefore shattering of herbage. These
and other similar topics are canvassed in the discussion section of this report.

No Victorian peppermint crops should be double harvested unless a premium price can be assured for
the resultant oil and it can be ascertained that the crop can survive the negative effect on plant vigour
over the long term.

vii
Introduction
Background, relevance and potential benefits
In 1996/7 this research project was commenced to examine the potential to maximise the yield and
productivity of peppermint crops from Mentha piperita through the use of double harvest techniques.

This project was developed as a result of the Victorian Peppermint Industry Strategy Plan adopted by
growers in May 1995 which focused on maximising yield of peppermint oil. This was based on the
assumption that under Victorian conditions double harvesting would significantly increase
sustainable yields. Further it was considered that the products from double harvest could be blended
to produce a similar unit value to normal harvested peppermint.

The importance of crop nutrition on yield of peppermint oil produced in double harvest systems has
been clearly shown in earlier studies. It was considered that further increases in yield may be
anticipated with a more thorough understanding of the management of crop nutrition and crop
management.

Studies in the peppermint growing areas of the USA have identified that where double harvest is
successful, the US industry regard the correct management of crop nitrogen status as essential to
success. This study sought to determine if a sustainable nitrogen management regime that maximises
potential long-term returns from double harvest can overcome the poor oil yields and increased
production costs experienced in a second harvest. Data from this study is relevant for single and
double harvest peppermint crops in south east Australia.

This report also discusses briefly the potential for alternative harvest techniques as a means of
improving both oil yield and oil profile. This may be a means of increasing oil productivity for both
single and double harvest regimes.

Major Victorian Peppermint Producers

The two major peppermint producers in the north east of Victoria are Vicmint situated in the King
Valley region and Corryong Essential Oils in the upper Murray River valley.

Vicmint
Vicmint has its main property of approximately 330 hectares of peppermint produced under a
combination of centre-pivot and linear-walker irrigation systems. The property was previously part
of a larger grazing enterprise near Moyhu. The original grazing property is now supporting two
different owners and enterprises in wine grape production and peppermint oil.

The area available and the scope of the planting at Moyhu offer an unprecedented opportunity to
offer a standard oil quality and security of supply. The scale of the operation should allow for
economies of scale and management. Having a larger scale of operation also allows for the chance to
custom grow areas for particular markets or blends.

The soil is a fine silty clay which does not allow easy penetration of water and the mode of water
application must be carefully managed to provide optimal availability of water without creating
extensive runoff problems of both water and nutrients and the subsequent waterlogging in the lower
areas.

Development of this property while showing considerable promise has had numerous setbacks in the
progress and expansion of the full potential of the enterprise. Vicmint has subcontracted other
smaller producers to augment its peppermint oil supply. This has been an important adjunct during

1
the setting up stage of the development but is of less importance as the larger scale plantings reach
full production.

Corryong Essential Oils

Corryong Essential Oils have approximately 120 ha in peppermint production on their properties in
the Corryong area of the upper Murray River valley in northeast Victoria. Both these properties use
flood irrigation and provide a reliable means of application that ensures adequate water supplies even
in the peak periods of water usage in January. A new area of peppermint and spearmint plantings in
2002 at Corryong will be centre-pivot irrigated.

The typical soil is free draining with some external problems associated with rising river levels and
subsequent unplanned flooding in late spring. Yields are normally in the 70-75 kg/ha range with
areas of the property exceeding this figure. Oil quality is normally very high which greatly assists
sale of the peppermint oil to high value niche export markets. Like VicMint, CEO subcontracts with
outside farmers to boost its available oil to provide more oil to its markets.

2
Objectives
The initial project objectives were:
• To add to the knowledge of management of a sustainable peppermint crop by employing
nutritional and operational practices which seek to maximise yield and productivity of
peppermint through double harvesting under Victorian conditions.

• To establish the major market reaction to double-cut Australian Peppermint oils and to assess
the suitability of the different oils produced using variable harvesting techniques.

• To produce a detailed report on peppermint double harvest which includes recommendations

for sources, rates, and timing of nitrogen fertiliser applications.

• To evaluate nitrate sap analysis, using the Cardy meter, as a predictive tool for crop nitrogen
management.

• To establish the economic viability of double harvest under Victorian conditions.

During the course of the project several additional studies were included because they directly
contributed to the initial objective to maximise yield and productivity.

These additional objectives were:

• To identify potential recoverable losses caused by inefficient harvest practices.

• To compare an alternative fresh harvest technique with the standard industry harvest practice.

3
Methodology
(i) Agronomic conditions required for Double-Harvest
The experimental design was a split plot factorial comprised of four nitrogen levels (100, 200, 300 &
500 kg (actual N) per ha rate) and three distinctive harvests performed on the trial sites each year (see
Fig 1). The areas labelled as H1 were treated as the first early double harvest – typically performed
in early-mid December. Similarly, the areas marked H2 were treated as the second early double
harvest – typically late December. H3 represents the normal single harvest plots normally performed
in early February. The H1 and H2 plots were then harvested a second time in March – April to
complete the double harvest regime.

Typical Harvest periods

Figure 1

The general plot structure is shown below in fig 2. An area of 13 x 4 metres was treated as a single
plot in terms of the general agronomy. Four nitrogen rates and four replications made up the 48
plots. In the last two years of this study, this plot plan was duplicated at two sites to assess the
longer-term effect on the plant population of double harvest regimes.
Figure 2

Individual Plot layout

4
This large area was subsequently divided into three sub-plots – each of three square metres. This
subplot 3x3m area was treated as a harvest area and the plants removed to ensure encroachment and
shading which may have limited regrowth were kept to a minimum. From each three-square metre
area, a single square metre block was harvested and distilled for each treatment.

From the one square metre plots physical parameters recorded included fresh weight in kilograms, oil
produced in millilitres and oil produced per kilogram of fresh weight. Chemical determinations were
made using Gas Chromatography for the following major oil components - menthone, menthofuran,
isomenthone, menthyl acetate and menthol. Results from these plots were analysed using the Genstat
statistical package.

(ii)Comparison of source of Nitrogen on yield/quality

Individual plot size was seven metres by three metres. A randomised replicated block design was
used. Two sources of nitrogen fertiliser, ammonium nitrate (34% actual nitrogen) and urea (46%
actual nitrogen and low biuret) were compared. For each treatment there were four rates of nitrogen
applied. These combinations of treatments were replicated three times.

The four rates of nitrogen were 100, 200, 300 and 500 kilograms of actual nitrogen per hectare per
season. Treatments were applied in six equal parts with applications from the middle of November
until the middle of January. The nitrogen source trial was conducted over two years. Harvest was
performed in mid-February each year from a one square metre. The harvested area was a centrally
placed area within the treated plot area.

From the one square metre plots physical parameters recorded included fresh weight in kilograms, oil
produced in millilitres and oil produced per kilogram of fresh weight. Chemical determinations were
made using Gas Chromatography for the following major oil components - menthone, menthofuran,
isomenthone, menthyl acetate and menthol. Results from these plots were analysed using the Genstat
statistical package.

Background Production Management for experiments (i) and (ii)

All trials were similarly treated in terms of herbicides (terbacil - at 1.5 kg per hectare applied in late
winter) and fungicides (propiconazole - in three fortnightly applications rates of 500 ml per hectare).
Irrigation was by overhead sprinkler at a rate of approximately five mega-litres of water applied over
the growing season per hectare. Maintenance base dressings of phosphorus and potassium were
applied.

Harvest for experiments (i) and (ii)

The plots were harvested using a petrol powered hedge trimmer. Plots were mulched in a garden
mulcher, held over for one hour and then transferred to the laboratory distillation units. This
technique has been previously detailed in Bienvenu, F. 1998. This method of harvesting and
distilling produces oils that are chemically close to oils resulting from large-scale commercial harvest
and distillation techniques, particularly in terms of menthofuran concentrations. Menthofuran
present in oils distilled in small stills can be elevated by a factor of two if care is not taken during
harvest pre-treatment. For other work on this topic see Mitchell A and Crowe F, 1996.

Distillation for experiments (i) and (ii)

The three cohobation distillation units used in the laboratory consist of standard glass condenser
apparatus and receiving vessels located on commercial-catering scaled pressure cookers with a
volume of 18 litres. Distillation is carried out at normal atmospheric pressure. The units hold
approximately 3 - 4 kilograms of fresh peppermint herbage and yields of 5-10mls of oil are produced
when distilled to exhaustion.

5
Chemical Analysis for all experiments
Analyses of the oil samples are performed on a Shimadzu 9A Gas Chromatograph using a AT1000
30 m column x 0.25mm fused silica capillary column (Carbowax 20M), gas flow of 1ml/min and
temp. 75-150C. The unit is fitted with a 12-channel auto-changer.

Seasonal Variation
Over the years of this project, yearly climatic variation was very noticeable. A synopsis of the
weather conditions particularly over the growing period follows.

Generally all four years achieved higher maximum temperatures during the growing seasons of the
years than the 40-year mean. The 1997/98 growing season was drier in both winter and summer than
any of the other three years of the projects duration and the 40-year mean. The maximum
temperatures were considerably higher than the other seasons and the minimum winter temperatures
were colder for this season also.

The other three years, one before 1997/98 and two following, were in general, slighter warmer than
the 40-year mean. The rainfall for all four seasons produced more rain in winter and much drier
conditions in summer than the 40-year mean would suggest.

(iii) Harvest Loss

Harvest trials were carried out on two properties of differing scales of operation. Site one with 17
plots was part of a large 260 ha property and site two of 9 plots was from a very small property of
3ha. On each property a series of one square metre plots were harvested in which every possible leaf
was retrieved for distillation using the laboratory micro stills to perform the distillation.

The typical harvest procedure includes – mowing/windrowing with a 12-14’ front (no conditioning).
The crop is then left for half a day, chopped with a forage harvester and blown up a chute into the
rectangular 18’ long tubs that are transported to the steam source for distillation.

The lab scale distillation apparatus includes an electric hotplate under a 20litre converted catering
cooker topped with glassware that houses the condensers and receiving areas. The return water is
reintroduced into the tubs in the manner of a cohobation still. The herbage is lightly mulched
through a domestic scaled garden leaf mulcher. The mulch herbage is left a “standard” time of one
hour to equilibrate. This procedure is detailed in Bienvenu, F. 1998.

(iv) Alternative Harvest Techniques

A large flail-type of mower/harvester was leased for the harvesting period. The harvesting machine
used was a Taarup 502 that had a 2 metre pickup front. This machinery directly chopped the
peppermint herbage from the fresh–standing position into the distillation tubs in a single action. The
size of the 2 metre pickup meant that there was more travelling required to fill each tub. The process
affected the harvester operations in two ways. Firstly, the more moist herbage took up more space in
the tubs and therefore more tubs would be needed to be distilled for a given field area. Secondly,
cutting the heavier herbage meant heavier work for the tractors.

(v) Sap nitrate testing in Peppermint

The Cardy Sap/stem Nitrate meter (or similar) has been used successfully for many years to provide
an “in-the-field” indicator of nitrogen status of a wide range of growing crops from cereals to tree
crops through out the world.

6
The use of other, more technically robust, testing methods has been undertaken in Tasmania in recent
studies over-lapping with the time period of this study and duplication of these studies seems
unwarranted. The use of the Cardy meter was not included in the Tasmanian study.

Stem samples were taken from the established nitrogen trials at fortnightly intervals and nitrogen
status levels were compared with the nitrogen levels. There was no statistical analysis performed, as
this was a pilot study to assess the potential for further work.

7
Results
General Background
Results are reported in detail for year 1 and indicate the potential for double harvest as a once only
operation superimposed on a normal crop.

Results in the following years are reported in less detail because of increasing variability caused by
increasing loss of crop vigour due to double harvesting. Results varied across sites and over seasons
and where applicable are presented by individual sites. Where relevant, site information is
amalgamated to present overall results.

Units used in this section – ml of oil per square metre from field plots can be calculated as kg of oil
per hectare rate by multiplying by 9. This conversion relates to the specific density of peppermint oil
0.89-0.91 when compared to water. For example 11.2ml of oil / square metre after conversion
becomes 100.8 kg / hectare rate.

1996/97 oil yield:

Only one effective site, the Ovens site, was available as the commercial site was affected by external
variables. Lack of irrigation and high disease incidence on the commercial site prevented valid
comparisons. The seasonal conditions were similar to the other seasons in the study period with the
exception of 1997/98.

A full summary of yield and quality parameters for 1996/97 is presented in Appendix 1.

Ovens Site
Oil yields from individual treatments are shown in figure 3.

Early + Late Harvests compared with Normal 1996-97

14
12
Oil (ml) per sq metre

10
8
6
4
2
0
1

4
3
-N

-N

-N

-N

-N

-N

La - N

or - N
-N

-N

-N
-N
1

al

al

al
al
e

te

m
m

m
rly Lat

at

rly Lat

rly Lat

rly Lat

rly Lat

rly Lat

or

or

or
L

N
+

+
1

2
rly

rly
Ea

Ea

Ea

Ea

Ea

Ea

Ea

Ea

Figure 3

8
The highest oil yield obtained for each of the first and normal harvest treatments on this trial site (for
1996/97) was at the 300kg(actual N)/ha rate when viewed as a single harvest crop. However, the oil
yield at 200kg(actual N)/ha was higher when the two late harvests were considered individually and
when the double harvest treatments were combined. Some depression in oil yield was observed at the
highest level of nitrogen - 500kg(actual N)/ha in each treatment. However, the only significant result
in comparison of nitrogen rates was between the N1 and N3 levels in the Normal harvest treatments.
As a consequence the average yields for the harvest treatments are shown in figure 4 after combining
nitrogen treatments.

Yield of oil from the combined nitrogen treatments in the Early1 + Late 1 harvest were significantly
less than those from the Normal harvest LSD 0.05 = 1.431. Treatments Early 1 + Late 1 combined
produced 10 ml of oil per square metre. Treatments Early 2 + Late 2 combined produced 10.6 ml of
oil per square metre. The Normal (or standard time) harvest produced 11.2 ml of oil per square
metre. See figure 4.

Combined Harvest 1996-97

12
Oil (ml) per square metre

10 1.9
3.0
8
Second
6 11.2 First
4 8.7
7.0

0
Early 1 & Late 1 Early 2 & Late 2 Normal
Harvest

Figure 4

1996/97 Oil Quality

Figure 5 shows key oil profile components obtained from individual harvests. Significant effects
were found for the interaction of menthofuran and increasing applications of nitrogen. The results
closely follow those found in the section of results reported in the Nitrogen Source Investigations
conducted in 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 (see page 17 for details).

Generally an elevation of menthone levels was significant in the higher nitrogen treatments.

Early harvests
The two early harvests considered on their own typically produced oil in 1996/97 with higher
menthone (30.4% and 28.5%) and lower menthol (36.9% and 38.6%) compared to the normal
menthone (26.7%) and menthol (41.8%). This is an expected outcome due to the less mature herbage
associated with peppermint at this stage of growth.

9
Menthofuran levels were very low in both the two early harvest regimes (0.3% and 0.2%) when
considered individually and in all early nitrogen treatments.

Menthyl acetate levels were slightly higher in the two earlier harvests (2.2% and 2.3%) than the
normal harvest (1.9%). Menthyl acetate is generally regarded as an indicator of maturity.

Late harvests
The later harvests produced very low levels of menthone (9.6% and 6.9%) and very high levels of
menthol (58.3% and 60.8%). Menthyl acetate levels rose to high levels in the two late harvests (4.8%
and 6.6%)

1996/97 Qualitative Parameters

Separate Harvests
60.8
60 58.3

Early1

50

41.6 Early2
40 38.6
36.9
%

30.4
30 28.5 Normal
26.7

20 Late1

9.6
10 6.9 6.6
4.8 Late2
2.62.9 3.3 3.6 3.7
2.31.6 2.2 2.3 1.9
0.30.21.1
0
Menthone Menthofuran Iso-menthone MenthylAcetate Menthol

Figure 5

Combined Harvest
The quality of oil produced when the two Early and Late harvest regimes are combined and compared
to the Normal harvested oils is very similar in most respects (see table 1. and figure 6). The blended
oil would be considered acceptable as the combined oils have a low level of menthofuran. The
combined oils also have low menthone and high menthol levels. In general any of the three
peppermint oil profiles shown in table 1 - would be considered commercially acceptable.

Table 1
1996/1997 Quality Early 1 + Late 1 Early 2 + Late 2 Normal LSD0.05
Isomenthone 2.962 3.206 3.706 0.194
Menthyl acetate 2.944 3.069 1.906 0.295
Menthofuran 0.956 0.712 1.137 0.217
Menthone 24.30 24.60 26.72 1.845
Menthol 43.14 42.64 41.55 ns

10
 1996/97 Qualitive Parameters
Combined Early + Late Harvests (Weighted Averages)
50

43.142.6
41.6
40

30 26.7
24.324.6 Early1+Late1
%

Early2+Late2
20
Normal

10

3 3.2 3.7 2.9 3.1

0.9 0.7 1.1 1.9

0
Menthone Menthofuran Iso-menthone MenthylAcetate Menthol

Figure 6

11
1997-1998 Oil Yield
Only one site (Ovens site) was harvested because the commercial site was again affected by lack of
irrigation, high disease and weed pressures. There was no evidence of pest or disease pressure in
effect at the Ovens harvested site.

In 1997/98 there was no significant difference in oil yields that could be attributed to the nitrogen
treatments for any harvest regime. As a consequence, average oil yields for each harvest treatment
regime for combined nitrogen levels is shown in figure 7.

Combined Harvest 1997-98

16

14
3.7
Oil (ml) per square metre

12

10
4.2 Second
8
First
6 11.1 11.6
4
6.8
2

0
Early 1 & Late 1 Early 2 & Late 2 Normal
Harvest

Figure 7

The combined Early 2 + Late 2 oil yield was significantly higher than the early 1+ Late 1 and the
Normal harvest as shown in table 2.

Table 2 Comparison of Total Yield x Harvest Regimes 1998/99

1997/1998 Yield Early 1 + Late 1 Early 2 + Late 2 Normal LSD0.05
Oil per sq.metre 11.06 14.83 11.56 2.043

1997/98 Oil Quality

There were no significant differences attributed to the varying nitrogen treatments however the
following significant harvest effects are listed in table 3.

Table 3 Comparison of Key Oil Compounds X Harvest Regimes 1998/99

1997/1998 Quality Early 1 + Late 1 Early 2 + Late 2 Normal LSD0.05
Isomenthone 2.894 3.475 3.863 0.161
menthyl acetate 4.46 3.33 2.39 0.613
Menthofuran 0.837 0.862 1.206 0.172
Menthone 23.71 26.50 27.43 2.116

1998/1999 Oil Yield

12
Two effective sites were harvested in the Ovens Valley. No significant pest pressures were operating
at either site. The seasonal conditions were similar to the other seasons with the exception of
1997/98.

There was some obvious stress causing growth depression in some of the double harvest treatments
that contributed to a loss of oil yield. No significant differences in oil yield were recorded across the
nitrogen treatments at either site. For both sites, there were no significant differences in yield
between harvesting regimes.

Figures 8 and 9 refer to the combined harvest data obtained at each site.

Combined Harvest 1998-99 Trial 1

12

10
Oil (ml) per square metre

3.4
8
5.0
6
Second
10.9 First
4
7.2
4.8
2

0
Early 1 & Late 1 Early 2 & Late 2 Normal
Harvest

Figure 8
Results obtained from the second trial area mirrored the results obtained from site 1. Seasonal
climatic variation was a more likely cause of the reduction of the peak yields seen in 1997/98 than
site selection.

Combined Harvest 1998-99 Trial 2

12
Oil (ml) per square metre

10
3.2
8 4.3
Second
6
10.7 First
4
7.1
5.8
2

0
Early 1 & Late 1 Early 2 & Late 2 Normal
Harvest

Figure 9

13
1998/99 Oil Quality

Tables 4 & 5 show oil quality data for sites 1 and 2 where significant differences were observed

Table 4 Comparison of Key Oil Components x Harvest Regime – Site 1 - 1998/99

1998/1999 Site1Quality Early 1 + Late 1 Early 2 + Late 2 Normal LSD0.05
Isomenthone 3.062 3.387 3.425 0.157
Menthyl acetate 3.89 2.92 4.16 0.527
Menthofuran 1.156 1.181 2.263 0.345
Menthone 24.37 23.62 21.34 1.638
Menthol 43.21 43.72 44.35 NS

Table 5 Comparison of Key Oil Components x Harvest Regime – Site 2 - 1998/99

1998/1999 Site2Quality Early 1 + Late 1 Early 2 + Late 2 Normal LSD0.05
Menthofuran 1.125 1.167 2.737 0.265
Menthone 26.46 23.35 21.35 1.592
Menthol 41.55 43.82 44.73 1.311

14
1999/2000 Season
After several successive years of double harvesting on the same site there was a very marked
reduction in yield of oil obtained from double harvested plots on both sites in 1999/2000. This was
particularly evident in the second harvest totals. Many individual plots, which had the double
harvest treatments applied over years, had no production of herbage at all. Tables 6 & 7 and Figures
10 & 11 refer to combined nitrogen treatments at each site.

Missing plots due to lack of plant growth make reporting of the quantitative aspects of this final year
very difficult.

Table 6 Number of “missing” plots – Site 1 – 1999/2000

Harvest regime at Site 1 Un-harvested plots Possible Plots
Single (normal) harvest 0 16
Double (early & late) harvest combined 19 32

Table 7 Number of “missing” plots – Site 2 – 1999/2000

Harvest regime at Site 2 Un-harvested plots Possible Plots
Single (normal) harvest 1 16
Double (early & late) harvest combined 23 32

For both trial sites the respective numbers of plots with no herbage at harvest time provides a good
indication of the negative effects that can be attributed to the pressures incurred by the use of two
harvests per season.

1999/2000 Oil Yield

There were no significant differences recorded for nitrogen treatments and nitrogen treatments have
been amalgamated at each site.

Combined Harvest 1999-2000 Trial 1

7
Oil (ml) per square metre

5 0.5
Second
4 0.5
7.5 First
3
4.5
2 3.8
1

0
Early 1 & Late 1 Early 2 & Late 2 Normal
Harvest

Figure 10

15
 Combined Harvest 1999-2000 Trial 2

6
Oil (ml) per square metre

4
Second
First
3 0.4
5.2
2
0.2 2.6
1
1.3
0
Early 1 & Late 1 Early 2 & Late 2 Normal
Harvest

Figure 11

Because of the large number of “missing” plots statistical analysis of the data has little meaningful
value.

1999/2000 Oil Quality

The large number of missing plots in the 1999/2000 season has made interpretation of the statistical
results for the quality parameters very difficult. The results obtained by the Genstat Statistics package
indicate that there were some significant differences in the quality parameters for the two sites.
However with an excess of 65% of the plots listed as missing or devoid of distillable herbage, any
inferences would be very tenuous. Consequently no quality data for either site has been included.

16
Comparisons of Nitrogen Sources
Comparisons between ammonium nitrate and urea, as alternative nitrogen sources, were conducted on
one site over two consecutive years and four rates. Results are reported separately by year for both
yield and quality.

Two sources of nitrogen fertilisers were tested for their effect on quality and yield of peppermint oil.
Ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) (34% actual N) and urea (46% actual N - low biuret form) were applied
on established peppermint plantings with varying rates were 100, 200, 300 and 500 kg actual nitrogen.

All plots had initial applications of 50kg (actual N)/ha and this application is included in the stated
rates above. In year one there was a significant reduction in yield for the treatment using Urea
compared to ammonium nitrate. In year two the effect was not significant at the 5% level of
confidence.

Levels of menthofuran and menthol are strongly associated with peppermint oil value. As a
consequence the impact of nitrogen source and nitrogen rate applied are shown separately for each
year.

1998/99 Yield Results

The effect of nitrogen rate on oil yield is shown in table 8

Table 8 Nitrogen Rate vs. Oil Yield 1998/99

Nitrogen Rate 1998/99 Oil Yield ml/sqmetre
n100 10.90
n200 13.62
n300 12.05
n500 11.43
LSD0.05 1.708

Table 9 shows the comparison between sources of nitrogen averaged across nitrogen rates.

Table 9 Nitrogen Source vs. Oil Yield 1998/99

Nitrogen Source 1998/99 Oil Yield ml/sqmetre
NH4NO3 12.67

Urea 11.33

LSD0.05 1.203

The peak oil yield harvested was found at the N2 rate of application. This was equivalent to 200 kg
(actual N)/ha rate. Both fresh weight of herbage and oil yield per kilogram of herbage were not
significantly affected by rate of nitrogen or source of nitrogen in either year of the study.

17
1998/99 Oil Quality
Effects on isomenthone, menthyl acetate, menthofuran and menthone are shown in Table 10. In
1998/1999 isomenthone levels were significantly increased between the 200 and 300 kg (actual N)/ha
nitrogen rates. In 1998/1999 there were increased levels of menthofuran evident with rising
application rates of nitrogen.

Table 10 Nitrogen Rate vs Oil Composition 1998/99

Nitrogen Rate 1998/1999 Isomenthone Menthyl Menthofuran Menthone
% Acetate % % %
n100 2.90 4.93 1.633 17.20
n200 3.30 4.07 1.817 20.58
n300 3.30 4.10 1.950 20.48
n500 3.16 4.53 2.517 18.95
LSD0.05 0.217 0.70 0.372 2.16

The increased menthofuran levels occurred in both ammonium nitrate and urea sources of nitrogen as
shown in figure 11

M e n th o fu ra n % vs N itro g e n
1 9 9 8 /1 9 9 9

3 .0

2 .5

2 .0
% Menthofuran

1 .5

1 .0

0 .5

0 .0
A A A A U U U U

100 200 300 500 100 200 300 500

Figure 11 Tre a tm e n t k g /h a

It was also interesting to note that the increase in menthofuran came at the expense of menthol. In
the following figure 12, menthofuran and menthol are expressed as a ratio. Again the situation
occurred regardless of the source of nitrogen.

18
 Menthol : Menthofuran
1998/1999

35.0

30.0
Menthol:Menthofuran ratio

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
A A A A U U U U

100 200 300 500 100 200 300 500

Treatment
Figure 12

19
1999/2000 Oil Yield
In 1999/2000 the trends seen in year one were evident however there were no significant differences in
yield for nitrogen source or rate of nitrogen.

1999/2000 Oil Quality

Table 11 shows the impact of varying nitrogen rates on some key oil components. In 1999/2000 the
isomenthone levels were again significantly affected by nitrogen rates.

In 1999/2000 again there were increased levels of menthofuran evident with rising application rates of
nitrogen. The increased menthofuran levels occurred in both ammonium nitrate and urea sources of
nitrogen. This trend has been observed in the other trials within and outside this project. See table 11
and figure 14. This is an important consideration for the total nitrogen rates applied during the
growing season regardless of yield response.

Table 11 Nitrogen rate vs Oil Composition 1999/2000

Nitrogen Rate Isomenthone Menthofuran
1999/2000 % %
n100 3.133 1.983
n200 3.300 2.350
n300 3.400 2.617
n500 3.383 2.800
LSD0.05 0.137 0.503

In 1999/2000 ammonium nitrate produced higher isomenthone levels than urea applications.
There were no other significant effects of source of nitrogen on oil quality.

Table 12 Nitrogen Source vs Composition 1999/2000

Nitrogen Source Isomenthone
1999/2000 %
NH4NO3 3.358

Urea 3.250

LSD0.05 0.097

20
In 1999/2000 a very similar pattern to 1998/1999 was obvious in terms of menthofuran and menthol.
See figures 14 & 15

Menthofuran % vs Nitrogen
1999/2000

3.0

2.5

2.0
%

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
A A A A U U U U
100 200 300 500 100 200 300 500
Figure 14 Treatment

Menthol : Menthofuran
1999/2000

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0
%

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
A A A A U U U U
100 200 300 500 100 200 300 500
Figure 15
Treatment

21
Harvest Loss
In mid-Feb 1998 a smaller property in the Buffalo Valley was grid sampled pre-harvest. Yields of
oil per plot ranged from 5.2 to 13.8 ml/square metre plot. The mean yield for plots from the smaller
farm was 10.4 ml/square metre and this can be considered approximately equal to a paddock yield of
91kg/ha. The final paddock harvest the same day was 65 kg/ha using the standard commercial scale
equipment.

The amount of oil loss that can be attributed to the process of harvesting the crop on a commercial
scale was 28.5% at this grower’s site. This oil loss figure equates closely with the results published
in Tasmania of almost 30% (Clark R and Read C, 2000)

Quality of oil obtained from samples derived from the micro stills and the commercial stills on a
grower’s property on successive days were comparable. See table 13.

Table 13 GC analyses from Composite Samples from Paddock and Tubs

Source Date Plot Menthone Mentho- Iso- Menthyl Menthol
Distilled No.s furan menthone acetate
Paddock 09/02/1998 9 22.9 1.5 4.5 3.0 43.6
Tubs 10/02/1998 4 22.8 1.7 3.5 3.3 44.0

Menthol (43.6% paddock – 44.0% tubs) and menthone (22.9% paddock - 22.8% tubs) were very
similar. There were some larger differences in the quality parameters menthofuran (1.5% paddock –
1.7% tubs), isomenthone (4.5% paddock - 3.5% tubs) and menthyl acetate (3.0% paddock - 3.3%
tubs) but in terms of overall quality the differences found are of lesser practical importance.

Alternative Harvest Techniques

During this project, operation of a large flail-type of mower/harvester was used to assess an
harvesting operation based on “fresh” harvesting. This harvesting machine directly chopped the
peppermint herbage from the standing position into the tubs in a single action. In the distillery, the
“fresh” tubs took longer to “break through”. Taken in the whole process of producing peppermint
oil this increase in time/costs was considered only marginal in the total cost of oil production.

In the distillery, as expected, the “fresh” tubs took longer to “break through”. This is the period from
the commencement of steaming the tub to the onset of the condensate reaching the receiving can.

Four “fresh” commercial scaled tubs were distilled during this operation and the results were very
encouraging. The time taken to “fresh” harvest was approximately 15% extra for a given area. The
extra time taken in the distillery caused boiler fuel costs to increase which in isolation was a concern
but not unexpected. Taken in the whole process of producing peppermint oil this increase in
time/costs was only marginal in the total cost of oil production.

No statistical analyses of yields were attempted, as this was a pilot project. Samples taken during
distillation indicated that menthol and menthyl acetate levels were increased at the expense of
menthofuran and menthone. This could lead to improved oil.

22
Sap nitrate testing in Peppermint
Initial investigations using a Cardy meter were a partial success. The results obtained in the first runs
were quite encouraging and an example of these can be seen in the following table 14 and figure 15.
The data indicates the expected relationship between the added nitrogen and the levels of nitrate in the
sap as recorded by the Cardy meter. Unfortunately, in later testing this relationship was shown to be
very erratic.

Table 14 GC analyses and Sap Nitrate Results from ORS Trial 1996/97
Nitrogen Sap N Fresh Wt Oil/m Oil menthone Mentho- iso- menthyl menthol
Applic Means Herbage l/plot ml/kg furan menthone acetate
100 3863 4362 10.8 2.5 33.7 0.4 4.2 1.8 35.9
200 5252 4523 10.9 2.4 33.4 0.5 4.0 1.7 36.2
300 6130 4968 11.4 2.3 31.4 0.4 4.0 2.1 36.9
500 6225 4320 11.2 2.7 32.2 0.6 4.0 1.9 36.9

Testing at the ORS at this early stage of development (first week in January) showed little differences
in the quality parameters that could be attributed directly to applied nitrogen levels. However
increases in oil yield can be seen. The Sap Nitrate figures are means of four plots each.

Sap Nitrate - Cardy Meter

100Nkg/ha
8000

7000
N ppm - Cardy Meter

6000 200Nkg/ha
5000

4000

3000 300Nkg/ha

2000

1000

0
400Nkg/ha
17-12-1996 2-1-1997 16-1-1997 7-2-1997

Figure 15
From results of trials using four levels of N applications and fortnightly measurements beginning in
mid December trends linking SapN levels to applied N levels are obvious in Figure 15.

Duplicate samples were tested over the range of the treatments and the readings could only be
described at best as increasingly erratic. Calibration techniques were re-scrutinised and re-done but
the meter could not be relied on to reliably calibrate to any standard over a protracted time.

The sensor pads were replaced with new pads and immediately a change in response occurred.
However within only a few hours the reading strayed and calibration again became impossible.
Representatives of the vending company verified that the procedure we had adopted was suitable.
The company further suggested that the nature of peppermint oil could be causing physical changes
to the membrane and prohibiting reliable operation/calibration of the machine.

Due to the inability to obtain consistently reproducible results it was concluded that the Cardy meter
was not suitable for prolonged use in the peppermint industry.

23
Discussion
Specific agronomic conditions are required to maximise peppermint oil yield and quality.

Impact of double harvest on oil yield

During this study there was only one in four years when double harvesting equalled or bettered the
yield produced by a normally timed harvest. In most years most double harvest regimes yielded
significantly less.

Continued double harvesting resulted in a loss of crop vigour and reduced crop yield capacity. The
increased and continual depletion of photosynthetic material resulted from the application of double
harvest techniques and the successive application of higher amounts of nitrogen throughout the
season reduced the sustainable oil yield potentials of the plots.

In addition to the above points the lateness of the second harvest caused considerable operational
problems to do with distillation difficulties. The cooler conditions caused later oil “break-through”
and made “end-point” determination more difficult. These effects have been a common occurrence
in the larger commercial peppermint oil producing properties in Corryong and the King Valley when
harvest is pushed later by climatic conditions. The use of insulated harvest tubs would enable more
efficient harvests at later dates.

Impact of Double Harvest on oil quality

In some years combining early and late double harvested oils produced oils with a similar profile to
normal harvested oils. In the final years of the study the loss of crop vigour was so strong that
combining the early and late harvested would lead to an imbalanced oil.

As peppermint crops mature oil goes through many compositional changes in the oil profile. The act
of harvesting provides a snap shot of the stage of oil composition at that time. Many factors can
affect the oil composition such as seasonal conditions.

Theoretic considerations on Oil Quality

Levels of menthol, menthone and menthyl acetate are
usually indicators of maturity in peppermint oil. However, Lower Higher
Menthol Menthone
it can be found that there are levels of these three
components appearing in early harvests that normally
would only be found at the normal harvest period. This
may be caused by an observed situation that manifests Top Leaf Position
itself as an oscillation of the levels of the major oil
components during maturation.

In the years preceding this study it had been noted that

there can be a period of time (usually very early January – Typical Peppermint Plant
some four weeks before the normal harvest time) where oil
can be produced which is close to the specifications
required for “good” oil. The concession for production of
this oil is for a far lower yield than normally achieved at
the usual harvest times. This oil component balance has
very low menthofuran that makes the early oil desirable
for blending with other oils of less quality – normally due BottomLeaf Position
to high menthofuran levels.
Lost leaves
The phenomenon is logically an effect
associated with variations in leaf Figure 16
Higher Lower
Menthol Menthone

24
retention and loss at various stages of maturation. Leaves in the many leaf positions up the stem
have differing ratios or balances of oil components (see figure 16) and any leaf loss during crop
maturation produces a resultant loss in quality in addition to the loss in oil yield. This produces the
normal situation in peppermint growing where a well-grown crop produces the best in terms of both
oil yield and quality. This is because the maximum leaves are available to produce the correct
balance of the major oil components and the leaves containing higher menthyl acetate and menthol
oil, the lower leaves, are not lost in the process of maturation.

The main modifiers of leaf retention are seasonal aspects such as short-term climate variation, light
penetration, mint rust control and crop moisture.

Oils with this early “good” component balance were not observed during course of this study. This
phenomenon may well prove to be affected by too many variables (raising difficulties in prediction)
to be worthy of consideration for inclusion in a harvest strategy.

As can be seen in tables 2 & 3 and in the figures 5 & 6, oils with widely varying profileswere
produced. The early and second cut later oils in general would require considerable blending to
produce satisfactory peppermint oil

Extremely high levels of menthol (approx 60%) were observed in the later harvests.

Seasonal Conditions
In what should have been a tougher year 1997/98 produced the best results in terms of oil yield for
double harvested plots. This was despite being the hottest, coldest and driest of the four seasons.

In times of less than normal rainfall, irrigated crops such as peppermint can sometimes benefit from
the regular inputs of water applications compared to the irregular rain-driven water applications.
This situation can occur even when equivalent amounts of water are received by the crop over a
season.

Pest and diseases and seasonal conditions can all lead to losses of bottom leaf. As the oil
composition changes with leaf position, any significant leaf lost, for whatever reason will cause,
changes to the oil profile. These changes are almost always negative in terms of oil quality as the
market is attuned to oil profiles of well-grown mature crops. Anything else is likely to result in
lower economic returns.

Impact of the rate of nitrogen on oil yield

Generally increasing the rate of nitrogen, under Victorian conditions, will not provide compensation
for the loss in crop vigour experienced due to double harvesting crops.

Impact of the rate of nitrogen on oil quality

Significant changes in oil composition/profile due to variation in nitrogen applications occurred in
the double harvest treatments. It should of concern that there was a consistent increase in
menthofuran levels with increasing nitrogen applications and this increase was at the expense of
menthol. This was evident in all trials conducted during this study. If an area was struggling to
maintain menthofuran levels below 2.5 %, very close attention to nitrogen levels would be advised.
Fortunately most of the commercial peppermint oil produced in Victoria has menthofuran levels at or
below 2.5 %.

Harvest Loss
Harvest loss determinations were made at several stages of the harvest cycle. Approximately 30% of
the oil present in the herbage at harvest time never makes it to the final drum. Most of these losses
occur before the distillery. This lost oil has been accumulating costs of production through the

25
growing period at the same rate as the harvested oil. Results in this study are in close agreement with
similar studies in the USA and also in Tasmania. This supports the view that in Victoria current
harvest techniques, while less than optimal, differ little in terms of efficiency with other peppermint
oil producer groups around the world.

Leaves at any given point in time in the lower stem positions contain an oil with higher menthol and
menthyl acetate while having lower menthone levels. Menthol and menthone level have an inverse
relationship as the leaf position alters vertically up the stem. The main effect of leaf loss or
senescence is that the lower leaves are progressively lost.

There are several mechanisms such as the closing of the plant canopy and subsequent light deficiency
at lower stem positions which can contribute to leaf loss and subsequent oil losses. The effects of
early defoliation by mint leaf rust due to Puccinia menthae infection can have major economic
consequences. Finally, stress due to lack of water at peak times can further complicate the harvest
efficiency.

This additional component of the current study provides interesting corroboration of the two research
efforts into peppermint oil production in Victoria and Tasmania. The results of this investigation and
the results obtained in Tasmania (see Clark R. and Read C. 2000 have indicated that despite the two
separate developments, in terms of crop losses due to harvesting practices, the end result is very
similar.

This degree of loss is also common in the USA indicating the likelihood that there are entrenched
problems involved in the harvest of peppermint worldwide. From the work by Clark and Read, a
large proportion of the losses (approx 19% of the total losses of 30%) occur between mowing/wind-
rowing and before the act of forage harvesting. Losses due to forage harvesting of the crop into the
back of the tubs have long been thought as the main culprit of the oil losses. Observable losses can
be seen as visible clouds of dust, fragmented leaf and a high degree of mint smell during this process.

Attention should also be given to the possibility that a major part of these losses may be due to
excessive drying of the crop and the inability of the forage harvester system to pick up fragile leaf.
The dry leaf, which can easily fall to the ground during the harvest procedure, contains valuable oil
in terms of quantity and quality. In peppermint, each leaf position up the plant stem contains oil with
different component ratios.

The net result of this lower leaf loss is a major reduction in yield and a less obvious but equally
negative loss in oil quality. Less oil is produced and the oil that is produced can be of a more
immature or lower menthol and higher menthone type of oil.

As part of the harvest loss investigations - herbage collected from site two was oven dried for 7days
@ 60 oC. The dried herbage from the fresh leaf, on subsequent distillation, yielded 39.5% of the oil
expected from a fresh sample. This indicates that excessive drying will reduce oil yield significantly.
More work is needed to see the effect of the more moderate field temperature of approximately 38oC
thus emulating the effect of delays in harvest in the field.

Alternative Harvest Techniques

During this project the operation of a flail type harvester/mower was used to assess a fresh harvesting
option. If this worked it was thought to be potentially useful in a double harvest regime. The only
variation in harvest management was that a smaller trial harvest area within the 10ha was “fresh”
harvested. The use of this procedure went against the theories of the time whereby it was considered
that peppermint could not be effectively harvested from fresh green leaf. The notion was that this
was due to the oil chemistry of the physical makeup of the fresh plant. In the eyes of the industry the

26
main problem facing the “fresh” harvest was that a greater amount of water in the plant harvested
into the tubs would cause increased times to distil the oil from the herbage.

The period of this work was during a run of wetter than average summers and several properties
experienced crop losses due to drying herbage, left in the field, becoming rain-affected. The
prescribed period required to reduce the water content of the crop ranges from half a day in dryer
areas to a week in the Midwest of USA. In Victoria, in the face of the high temperatures (40oC+)
usually experienced during the harvesting period of late January to mid February, this usually meant
a delay in harvest of half to one day depending on the soil moisture of the field. If left any longer in
the field then the forage harvesting of the herbage results in the powdering of the dry leaves and
considerable losses due to the inability of the harvester to deposit the chopped leaves into the
distillation tubs and considerable leaf loss could be seen on the ground.

Specific advantages in developing this “fresh” harvest technique further include:

• Freedom from the threat of rain affecting mown crops - it is possible to stop immediately
with the onset of rain. The upright plants shed water quicker than windrowed heaps of
herbage, so the harvesting of the herbage can be re-established at an earlier time.
• The nature of the flail mower means that the harvester sets up a considerable vacuum effect.
This vacuum effect picks up all the herbage both on the stem and on the ground surface.
This leads to all the available leaf being harvested thus maximising yield.
• The salvaging of the loose leaf (normally lost) also has qualitative benefits. The oil
contained in fallen leaf is higher in the “mature” components than standing leaf. This is
because the peppermint plant when viewed from bottom to top has an oil higher in menthol
and menthyl acetate in leaves closer to the base than the “immature” leaves on the upper
parts of the stem. The first leaves to fall are the lower, more mature leaves. The total oil
component from a “fresh” harvest is of a higher quality in terms of the higher menthol and
menthyl acetate and lower in menthone.
• No mowing and windrowing is required. This can save considerable machinery and labour
costs.
• This process eliminates two of the main causes of oil losses in the field (a) the effect of rain
damage and (b) the effect of over-drying and shattering on leaf loss and the consequential oil
losses.

The disadvantages are:

• Slower harvest in terms of getting the herbage in the tubs. Harvest time using the flail
harvester was found to be 15-20% longer to fill a standard mint tub.
• Slightly more tubs are required for a given area due to the extra herbage bulk needing to be
transported compared to the semi-wilted material.

The above two disadvantages mean that approximately 25-30% extra total time is required to harvest
the mint field.

However, there is a compensating reduction in time required for total harvest procedure due to the
complete elimination of the process of mowing and windrowing of the herbage. The physical
damage and loss caused by the mowing and windrowing is also eliminated.

Sap nitrate testing in Peppermint

Successful use of a simple test that could be used on-farm, by farmers, to monitor the nitrogen status
was enticing. To provide a somewhat pro-active tool in terms of not waiting until the crop was
visually depleted in nutrients before acting would have been very useful. Double harvest regimes
overseas require close attention to nutrition so the simple diagnostic tool needed to be evaluated
under conditions found in peppermint production.

27
Some meaningful trends were obtained using the Cardy meter but the problems of reliability defeated
the main benefit of using the unit – fast and on-site. Due to the calibration difficulties results
obtained were neither fast nor on-site. This is because in an attempt to stabilise the unit, lab based
measurements were also required to minimise the effect of rising temperature in the outdoor
environment.

Markets for double harvest peppermint oils

Results obtained from this project suggested that double harvest of peppermint crops was not a
sustainable option for local producers. As a consequence much of the market investigation was
left to VicMint Pty. Ltd.

Discussions between NRE-Ovens and Bush Boake Allen (BBA) contacts, prior to BBA’s recent
restructure, indicated that major markets were unlikely to be interested in small volumes of
“out of specification” peppermint oils.

28
Comments from VicMint Pty. Ltd.
Double harvesting of peppermint by necessity brings into question the economic value of various oils
as the parameters of an early cut oil differ greatly from those of a late cut oil as do the parameters of
a single cut and double cut oil. It is difficult to determine what is good quality oil as the type of oil
required varies considerably from one manufacturer to another. In this context quality refers to
maintaining a consistent profile/taste of oil between batches and years etc. A manufacturer may want
a specific low cost oil and as the purchaser, those requirements determine what the “quality” will be.

Australian peppermint oil has a typical high quality peppermint taste/smell with a high menthol level
(1-menthol 42-45%) and a low menthofuran level (usually less than 2.5 %). Such a particular oil is
considered at the commodity level as a very good quality oil as it probably is the most “useable” or
most “adaptable” oil.

There is a clear possibility of danger in the pursuit of double harvesting. Immature oils with very
high menthone levels (26-30% and above) are not wanted in the market place. Such oils not only
have poor GC profiles but have poor taste and smell characteristics. Such oils can be blended out to
be useful oils but are always reducing the value and quality of the total oil. The onset of harvest
needs to be assessed from the aspect that immature oils are not produced in bulk on the market place.

The place in the market where a particular oil is sold determines the quality required of an oil. If oil
is being sold as a commodity, the mint house is buying this oil knowing what oil they have in stock
and thus where that specific oil will be able to be blended with their present stock. It is necessary to
match their requirements to sell the oil. In Australia, when producing oil for the commodity market
then the aim should be for a low menthofuran and a high menthol oil. In the manufacturers market,
the requirements are specified and must become the target.

Most of the studies done to date with the production of early and late cut oils have aimed at
producing the typical Australian oil types of low menthofuran and high menthol levels. There is a
great array of oil types required at the market level and this is determined by who is the buyer. It is
evident that markets do exist for many of the double cut oils produced from the North-East Victorian
region.

In the middle and late 1980’s when peppermint oil production started in Victoria, the industry was
faced with a need for a quality oil product to interest the first batch of likely buyers. There have been
many areas in the world that have set out to produce peppermint oil but most have failed to impress
buyers due to poor quality and or inconsistent quality and supply across years.

In recent years USA buyers have been encouraging Australian producers to harvest their fields for
the maximum oil yield and leave it to the large US mint houses to blend accordingly to produce a
more marketable oil. This is probably true overall for all commodity oil markets. From the
marketing aspect if Australian peppermint oil growers keep in mind the problems of immature oils,
the optimum marketability of low menthofuran and high menthol oils and the very wide variety of
oils required by the manufacturers then the goal for the grower must now be oil yield.

USA Industry Contacts

Over the past ten years there have been changes in the way peppermint oils are produced and used.
While the new means may be seen as “engineering’ this is probably too clinical a word for the
process. The process could be seen as more an attempt to emulate the “old” area/region specific oils
but made from oils of different origins. The region in Oregon, USA known as Madras has for many
years been known as a producer of peppermint oil with a consistently high quality and was the
archetype for high quality peppermint oil. Food manufacturers would demand a “certificate of
origin” to ensure product consistency. While this did provide a means to aid in the supply of
consistent quality peppermint oil, there will always be good and bad years and bad crops within that
region.

29
The term "Functionally Specific Oils" is now becoming the accepted way to explain the use of
peppermint oils sourced from various regions that allow reference to an oil that has Madras
peppermint oil functionality, yet need not contain any Madras peppermint oil. This allows
companies to provide customers who still require district specific oils with all the quality aspects but
at a lower product cost. Very few flavour houses now require a certificate of origin except for
knowledge of country of origin.

The industry requirement for area specific Madras, Willamette, and Montana oil is less than ten
percent of what it was just 4 or 5 years ago. Bulk oils from Washington - Yakima (double cut),
Idaho and even from the emerging industry in India are becoming predominate sources of true
peppermint (Mentha piperita) oil. Using these peppermint oils, an oil blend can be “built” with
almost any functionality that a customer requires. The overall price is less with the use of
"Functionally Specific Oils" even with the companies retaining a higher margin than it would with
the district specific oils.

The industry is now far less susceptible to the effects of supply and price variations brought on by
regional failures. Even the high menthol, high menthofuran oils can be stripped of menthofuran.
The removed menthofuran can then be sold to the perfumery industry at a high price. The left-over
oil is a cheap high menthol building block which becomes a high value product to sell outside of the
mint oil industry, plus other isolated mint-flavour components that can be added back to blends based
on very cheap dementholised mint oil to give them a more peppermint-like functionality. An oil can
be “built” that functions the same as a Madras type peppermint oil for about 70% of what it would
cost to buy the real thing and without the natural drum-to-drum variations.

This has not been good news for a lot of growers in the traditional growing districts of the USA and
may not favour the new producers in Australia. Careful attention to the market requirements will be
of paramount importance to succeed in producing peppermint oil.

The wild fluctuations in peppermint oil prices experienced over the history of the peppermint oil
industry are much less likely under the conditions that prevail now. The overall price for peppermint
oil will be less than before but prices will be more stable. Customers are broadening their attitude to
where oil can be sourced, the level of blending of oil that is allowable and appreciate the lower cost
of purchasing peppermint oil.

In the USA the traditional peppermint oil buyers, Todd, Leman, Callison and Labbee companies,
have reacted in differing degrees to these changes. A.M.Todd Company has been at the forefront of
precipitating these changes and see themselves as moving to the role of a fully-fledged flavour house
by broadening their product and customer base. Their product range now includes the oils of all
mints. Todd’s portfolio includes all the citrus oils, vanilla, spices and nutriceuticals (botanicals).
Todd aim to offer integrated flavour and functionality solutions to the industry. They can now go to
a customer with a chewing gum, toothpaste, or a functional soft drink - all made up in final form -
and can supply the entire ingredient list or combinations for that product.

Callison is trying to move the same direction as Todd but have less critical mass. The other smaller
peppermint dealers are maintaining a more traditional approach but to varying degrees. Leman and
Labbee are still very much traditional mint dealers and see that area as their niche. In the future, as
Todd move to more of a flavour house, they may look to the remaining traditional dealers, such as
Leman and Labbee, as one of their sources for some of their oil requirements – that is if those two
players are able to survive the radical changes in the essential oil marketing world.

30
Implications and Recommendations
The use of double harvest as a management tool under Victorian conditions will result in a loss of
crop vigour over successive seasons. Double harvesting is likely to be unsustainable if carried out
over a period of years. As a consequence Victorian peppermint oil crops should not be double
harvested unless there is a specific very high value market for out of specification oil.

Nitrogen can used to manipulate oil profile however high rates are destructive to both yield and oil
quality. No benefit has been observed from nitrogen applications above 200 - 300 kg actual N per
ha. and nitrogen rates higher than 300 kg actual N per ha are not recommended.

If maximisation of peppermint oil yield is a key goal of producers then significant savings in losses
could be made at the harvest and distillation stages through the development and adoption of more
effective harvest techniques.

31
References
• Bienvenu F. An Effective Maturity Prediction Program for Peppermint Oil Crops” presented at
the International Mint Symposium held in Seattle, Washington, USA August 1997 and published
in the Perfumer and Flavorist 1998

• Clark R and Read C, Production of Peppermint Oil – a model of best practice for Tasmania and
Victoria” published by RIRDC no. 00/20 Aug 2000

• Mitchell A and Crowe F. Peppermint Oil Yield and Composition from Mini and Industrial
Distilleries Journal of Herbs, Spices, & Medicinal Plants, Vol 4(1) 1996 p81-85

32
Appendix
1996-1997 Summary of yield and quality data (means of 4 replications)
Harvests individually reported
Harvest Nitrogen Fresh Oil FreshWeight Menthone Menthofuran Isomenthone Menthyl acetate Menthol
Time Applic. Wt. (ml) ml/kg % % % % %
E1 N1 3315 6.9 2.1 28.6 0.3 3.1 2.1 38.4
N2 3659 7.2 2.0 31.2 0.3 3.3 2.1 36.3
N3 3557 7.3 2.0 31.1 0.3 3.3 2.3 36.9
N4 3795 6.7 1.7 30.9 0.3 3.5 2.3 36.1
Mean 3581 7.0 2.0 30.4 0.3 3.3 2.2 36.9
E2 N1 3937 7.7 2.0 26.8 0.2 3.4 2.2 39.9
N2 4102 8.8 2.2 28.2 0.2 3.6 2.4 40.2
N3 4247 9.6 2.3 30.2 0.3 3.5 2.2 37.3
N4 4403 8.8 2.0 29.0 0.3 3.8 2.3 37.2
Mean 4172 8.7 2.1 28.5 0.2 3.6 2.3 38.6
N N1 4104 11.0 2.7 28.7 1.1 3.9 1.9 40.9
N2 3265 8.9 2.7 22.9 0.9 3.3 2.0 44.3
N3 4049 13.0 3.2 27.7 1.2 3.8 2.0 40.6
N4 4228 12.1 2.9 27.7 1.4 3.8 1.8 40.4
Mean 3912 11.2 2.9 26.7 1.1 3.7 1.9 41.6
L1 N1 764 2.6 3.5 9.1 2.0 2.0 5.5 58.3
N2 1119 3.8 3.5 10.8 2.6 2.2 4.3 57.3
N3 818 2.7 3.3 9.8 2.9 2.3 4.5 58.6
N4 922 2.8 3.1 8.8 2.9 2.6 4.7 59.1
Mean 906 3.0 3.3 9.6 2.6 2.3 4.8 58.3
L2 N1 619 2.0 3.2 5.7 2.4 1.4 6.7 61.0
N2 637 2.1 3.4 7.0 2.8 1.6 6.6 61.0
N3 553 2.0 3.6 7.4 3.2 1.8 6.4 60.6
N4 498 1.7 3.3 7.2 3.4 1.6 6.6 60.8
Mean 577 1.9 3.4 6.9 2.9 1.6 6.6 60.8

Harvests Combined with weighted means for oil yield

Harvest N Fresh Oil Fresh Menthone Mentho- Iso- Menthyl Menthol
Time Applic. Wt. (ml) ml/kg % furan % menthone% acetate % %
E1+L1 N1 4079 9.6 2.4 23.2 0.7 2.8 3.0 43.8
N2 4778 11.0 2.3 24.1 1.1 2.9 2.9 43.4
N3 4375 9.9 2.3 25.6 1.0 3.0 2.9 42.4
N4 4716 9.5 2.0 24.4 1.1 3.1 3.0 42.9
Mean 4487 10.0 2.2 24.3 0.9 3.0 2.9 43.1
E2+L2 N1 4257 9.7 2.3 23.0 0.5 3.0 2.9 43.5
N2 4739 10.9 2.4 24.1 0.7 3.2 3.2 44.2
N3 5212 11.2 2.2 25.7 0.8 3.2 3.1 41.5
N4 4787 10.7 2.3 25.6 0.8 3.4 3.2 41.4
Mean 4749 10.6 2.3 24.6 0.7 3.2 3.1 42.6
Normal N1 3407 9.1 2.7 22.3 0.8 3.3 2.0 44.6
N2 3728 11.1 3.0 26.6 1.3 3.6 2.2 41.4
N3 4211 13.2 3.1 29.8 1.1 4.0 1.6 40.0
N4 4301 11.6 2.7 28.3 1.4 3.9 1.8 40.2
Mean 3912 11.2 2.9 26.7 1.1 3.7 1.9 41.6

33