Using Olive oil instead of Oxygen

Denny said:

Actually, it doesn't make sense to me. If I was going to do it, I'd choose a really neutral yeast so it wouldn't interfere with what I was testing.

Click to expand...

Hmm....

My thoughts were that the changes would be more noticeable with this yeast, but I see your point.

What style of beer, OG, and yeast would you think is best suited for a test like this? Likely, I'd choose US-05 for my test if I was to follow your logic on the yeast.

Maybe a Pale Ale in the 1.040-1.050 range.

Yeah, I think that's what I'd do. Keep it under 40 IBU. I prefer 1056 to 05, but that's personal preference. 05 should be fine and if you get 2 packs from the same lot number you could be pretty certain of approximately equal viability. That's what I did for my FWH experiment. You want to do everythg you can to limit the variables to just what you're trying to find out.

If your planning on using US-05 there's the other issue that dry yeast supposedly doesnt even need any oxygen. I say go with 1056 liquid. Or I guess you could use a US-05 cake.

Haputanlas said:

Agreed. I'll probably go with #3. However, this is more for me and my preferences. I don't really care to get too detailed/specific or scientific (Very anecdotal).

My goal here was to potentially find a way to produce rather large batches (10+ gallons) without a special aeration system. If I am convinced that the OO method works without having to go out of my way to aerate, then I will feel successful.

Now, if the beer has a significant change in flavor/aroma (Desirable or not), I will at least have first hand experience of the differentiation of results for OO and Aeration.

I chose a hef as my first beer for this test due to the fact that the esters and character of the yeast are so dependent on the environment you give it (Specifically with Wyeast 3068).

If I were to have chosen US-05 / Chico, I would expect the yeast to be far more tolerent and affect the outcome of flavor/esters to a lesser degree.

Does that make sense?

Click to expand...

Honestly I was going to say to do whatever would be closest to your normal brewing practices :rockin: Im not all for the scientific procedures.

kpr121 said:

If your planning on using US-05 there's the other issue that dry yeast supposedly doesnt even need any oxygen. I say go with 1056 liquid. Or I guess you could use a US-05 cake.

Click to expand...

Another good point. It'll be another week or two until I get around to this, but currently planning.

I'll post everything I've done on brew day. However, I'm sure I'll have some more posts in the meantime.

not to put a damper on the scientific method... but most of us are probably not scientists first and homebrewer second. The ultimate goal is making beer (no?)

So I would see the main question not as "How efficient does OO replace oxygenation and what are the byproducts/effects?" but rather "How does adding OO instead of oxygen right before fermentation affect the quality of the beer I make" - the second question doesn't really care that you oxygenated/aerated your starter - if that's what you do, that's what you do...

Also, I think it should be compared against real oxygenation (e.g., pure oxygen at proper levels) as opposed to just shaking...

The goal of improving flavor stability was achieved but at the cost of increased esters and slightly slower fermentations.

Click to expand...

- The last sentence of the conclusion of the original 2005 thesis.

Interesting comment, aaronbeach. It seems the original question was answered in 2005. Discounting the hysteria and nonsense what remains?

The salient question is “Is it worthwhile to supplement our starters with olive oil?”

For myself, the answer is “Why not?” I don’t think it’s possible for my yeast to be too healthy and happy.

For me, the answer is "Why bother?". But we all get to answer the question for ourselves.

Really, Denny? If you find it too much trouble to pour a couple drops of olive oil, how do you ever get off the couch?

Oxidative Effects of Wort Aeration
Previously conducted research has shown that wort aeration causes oxidative reactions to occur in the wort, which form the precursors to beer staling compounds (Burkert, 2004). It is widely understood that minimizing the exposure of beer or wort to oxygen will improve the finished product’s resistance to oxidation. During knock out it is traditional practice to completely saturate the wort with air or oxygen, intentionally dissolving 8 to 10 ppm oxygen into the liquid. The yeast takes up the oxygen very quickly after wort aeration but the oxidative reactions also take place very quickly. Even though wort aeration is a universally excepted practice it seems very logical that eliminating this step would be a significant improvement on the final beer’s resistance to oxidation. Therefore it makes sense that reducing the product’s exposure to oxygen would improve its flavor stability.

Click to expand...

- from Grady Hull’s 2005 thesis

So, to answer your question, better beer. I really don’t see a down side.

As for dry yeast, I don’t think the oil would do a thing. They say there is enough lipid in the dry yeast to multiply three times. Same reason you don’t need to oxygenate the wort with dry yeast.

Before I take an action, I like to know it's going to provide me a benefit. Part of my pragmatic way of brewing. If there was actual proof that I'd get a better beer, I'd do it. But it hasn't been proven to my satisfaction.

Haputanlas said:

My goal here was to potentially find a way to produce rather large batches (10+ gallons) without a special aeration system. If I am convinced that the OO method works without having to go out of my way to aerate, then I will feel successful.

Click to expand...

Based on this, I would suggest you don't take any special steps to preclude O2. Just brew and transfer as normal (no CO2), make starter as normal, and deliberately aerate one batch, and just add OO to the other.

Calder said:

Based on this, I would suggest you don't take any special steps to preclude O2. Just brew and transfer as normal (no CO2), make starter as normal, and deliberately aerate one batch, and just add OO to the other.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. For most of us, the goal is to supplement insufficient aeration. So do one batch as normal and the other as normal plus a drop of OO in your starter. See if there is any noticeable difference.

ohaipikachu

Haputanlas said:

I am of the opinion that just transferring wort into the fermenter can add more oxygen to the wort than desired for a split batch test. Because of this, I plan to add a blanket of C02 into the fermenter before the transfer (via my kegging system) and then run the transfer.

So, the goal is to make a 10 gallon batch of Hef with 5 gallons OO (as little Oxygen introduced as possible) and 5 gallons Oxygen (Manual shake since I don't have pure Oxygen).

One question though. If I am creating a starter for both of these, there is a significant amount of oxygen that will be added during this phase. Do you think this will affect the outcome of this test?

Click to expand...

You cannot count on there being little O2 in the wort if you're transferring without a siphon. The co2 blanket in theory helps but in reality the time it takes to siphon 5 gallons would most likely introduce some O2. Unless you do it under pressure then you're going to introduce O2. The best way to reduce that is to siphon it.

You need less O2 if you introduce it in the starter stage. Some people don't even do it with the beer but rather at that stage. You need to direct pitch each batch to get more of an accurate experiment

Wynne-R said:

- The last sentence of the conclusion of the original 2005 thesis.

Interesting comment, aaronbeach. It seems the original question was answered in 2005. Discounting the hysteria and nonsense what remains?

The salient question is “Is it worthwhile to supplement our starters with olive oil?”

For myself, the answer is “Why not?” I don’t think it’s possible for my yeast to be too healthy and happy.

Click to expand...

In addition to this, the very small amount of OO you use will stick to the walls of the starter container

Wynne-R said:

Really, Denny? If you find it too much trouble to pour a couple drops of olive oil, how do you ever get off the couch?

Click to expand...

i think we all know Denny get's around. wyeast didn't give him his own strain because he was lazy

I believe he is referring to the preference of adopting the technique. he believes there isn't enough definitive evidence. Even though I don't have the same preference, I cannot discount him for it.

No need for a cheap shot.

SC_Ryan said:

ohaipikachu

Click to expand...

You sneaky sonofabitch!

seabass07 said:

I agree with this. For most of us, the goal is to supplement insufficient aeration. So do one batch as normal and the other as normal plus a drop of OO in your starter. See if there is any noticeable difference.

Click to expand...

This is not what the original study was done for. It wasn't done for insufficient aeration, new Belgium obviously aerated their wort appropriately. the original study was done to see if beer could be brewed without the presence of O2, which when left over can reduce the lifespan of the beer

The question here is scientific, not preferential.

seabass07 said:

You sneaky sonofabitch!

Click to expand...

Hahaha. I see what you did there.

agenthucky said:

This is not what the original study was done for. It wasn't done for insufficient aeration, new Belgium obviously aerated their wort appropriately. the original study was done to see if beer could be brewed without the presence of O2, which when left over can reduce the lifespan of the beer

The question here is scientific, not preferential.

Click to expand...

Regardless of what the original studies were done for, this is what most people here are using it for. If you want results for zero aeration + OO vs oxygen, then just read the original study. Your answer is already in there. It works, but it's a bit slower and increases esters. Instead of repeating the original experiment, why not adapt this to your method and see if it helps or even makes a difference.

I wonder why no one seems to have done any tests that include adding ergosterol in addition to OO. The yeast also need O2 to make ergosterol for their cell walls. Adding OO is only going to give the yeast part of what they need. That could be part of the reason for the increased esters. Anyone know where to get their hands on some ergosterol?

seabass07 said:

Regardless of what the original studies were done for, this is what most people here are using it for. If you want results for zero aeration + OO vs oxygen, then just read the original study. Your answer is already in there. It works, but it's a bit slower and increases esters. Instead of repeating the original experiment, why not adapt this to your method and see if it helps or even makes a difference.

Click to expand...

The whole first part of this discussion was if it made any difference at a homebrew level. Adding in fractions of a drop is a different ratio than was used in the experiment. The problem with adapting to your method is that everyone brews differently. If person X says they did step Y and it improved their beer it is not repeatable by anyone else reading this.

I have adopted this, and provided my results. I did both, and it helped, but the beer never lasted that long so results were speculative. it's not definitive because it wasn't controlled.

Though you have a good point about ergosterol

I understand how the thread started out, but most of us introduce o2 into our beer accidentally. Most of us, it seems, dont use pure o2 or an aeration stone. So consider this an alternate discussion about using oo to suppliment shaking.

seabass07 said:

I understand how the thread started out, but most of us introduce o2 into our beer accidentally. Most of us, it seems, dont use pure o2 or an aeration stone. So consider this an alternate discussion about using oo to suppliment shaking.

Click to expand...

Agreed, most homebrewers don't need the shelf life new belgium was trying to achieve either. Notice the topic of this thread "Using Olive Oil Instead of Oxygen". It's what attracts people to this thread.

I would just like to see this become a viable alternative to aerating in the brewing world. Then you'll see experiments to compare shaking, stones, OO much like we already have now. Until it is excepted, and written about in books it will just be a side discussion.

I hate to argue about this as it's mostly irrelevant but I am also perturbed by threads that have 50+ pages. When you get to that point questions are asked over and over again by people not reading through the bulk of the non important posts (see the pikachu comment). If there is an end goal, it won't be reached by watering down the thread.

Yeah I thought that too, SeaBass07, that we should be comparing some aeration to some aeration with oil. Problem is, the effect is too subtle to show on a single trial. You might prevent a stuck fermentation or have better stability, but it’s going to be hard to prove.

I was going to repeat that experiment with some double blind tasting with BJCP judges. Now I think it would be inconclusive. As Denny says, ‘Why bother?’

Which reminds me, if Denny thought I was taking a shot at him, I’m sorry. I’m pretty sure he understood what I was saying.

We know oxygen is bad for beer. We know olive oil can substitute for oxygen. I don’t know of any reason to think that it wouldn’t work for a sub-optimally aerated batch. Just the effect would be less. And harder to prove.

The part I don’t understand now is why people don’t want to accept the conclusions of the original experiment.

OK,, I've read the thread, and it would seem there are probably some benefits to using OO, with no noted downside.

Based on what I have read, I plan to add a drop (or less) of OO to my fermenter from now on. I'll not make any changes to what I do (splashing and lots of shaking), and see what happens.

I don't expect to see any improvement, but I think I will continue to use it because it may help, provided I don't find anything detrimental that I can contribute to it.

Anyone see any problem with this.

Wynne-R said:

The part I don’t understand now is why people don’t want to accept the conclusions of the original experiment.

Click to expand...

DITTO!

In addition to that the biggest reason to not use OO would be the effect on head retention. Multiple people have shown this isn't the case though, scientific experiment or not, people have used OO with no ill effects to the head retention. I just think it's the case of people stuck in their ways and believing the old thoughts of all oil is bad for head retention. Being in the tech industry, adapting to new technology and information is crucial to furthering yourself and your work. I'm not saying everyone has to use it to make great beer, but it shouldn't be ignored if it has the potential to make better beer.

Calder I think you would do better to add 2-3 drops to the starter. In the original experiment they were adding olive oil to the yeast starter 5 hours before pitching. Good for you for having an open mind and actually trying it.

I don’t think it’s just about the head. But on that subject, there’s way more oil in hops than two drops. Also 2 drops in five gallons is like 5 ppb.

I can see why a longer fermentation would be unacceptable to commercial brewers. To us it’s nothing. Slight increase in esters? Hey, if it’s not bananas, sign me up.

Wynne-R said:

Calder I think you would do better to add 2-3 drops to the starter. In the original experiment they were adding olive oil to the yeast starter 5 hours before pitching. Good for you for having an open mind and actually trying it.

I don’t think it’s just about the head. But on that subject, there’s way more oil in hops than two drops. Also 2 drops in five gallons is like 5 ppb.

I can see why a longer fermentation would be unacceptable to commercial brewers. To us it’s nothing. Slight increase in esters? Hey, if it’s not bananas, sign me up.

Click to expand...

Without going back to find my references, I think I saw that the original use was roughly 1/10th a drop in 5 gallons. My thought was to just dip the end of a sanitized thermometer (or probe of some type) in the oil and then in the cooled wort.

Why the fermenter and not starter? I often just wash yeast and pitch yeast without a starter. Probably use a starter about 25% of the time, the other times are freshly washed yeast. Adding to fermenter makes it consistent and part of my process.

agenthucky said:

Agreed, most homebrewers don't need the shelf life new belgium was trying to achieve either. Notice the topic of this thread "Using Olive Oil Instead of Oxygen". It's what attracts people to this thread.

I would just like to see this become a viable alternative to aerating in the brewing world. Then you'll see experiments to compare shaking, stones, OO much like we already have now. Until it is excepted, and written about in books it will just be a side discussion.

I hate to argue about this as it's mostly irrelevant but I am also perturbed by threads that have 50+ pages. When you get to that point questions are asked over and over again by people not reading through the bulk of the non important posts (see the pikachu comment). If there is an end goal, it won't be reached by watering down the thread.

Click to expand...

That pikachu comment had more relevance than most of this thread.

Wynne-R said:

The part I don’t understand now is why people don’t want to accept the conclusions of the original experiment.

Click to expand...

I don't anybody out-rightly rejects the conclusions, it think they are questioning the jump in logic between what how the experiments were done in the thesis and what homebrewers are doing now.

Hull's thesis work was adding OO to stored yeast, but homebrewers have extrapolated this work to suggest that adding OO to wort directly is going to have some effect. As Denny has pointed out (and his friend's tasting experiment shows), adding OO in this fashion does not have any significant effect.

Wynne-R said:

We know olive oil can substitute for oxygen.

Click to expand...

Well, what Hull thesis shows is that OO-treated yeast appears to ferment the New Belgium wort similarly to oxygen-treated wort (with small differences in taste and fermentation kinetics). What is NOT known is how a batch of wort that received no treatment whatsoever would ferment. It is entirely possible even with no treatment it would ferment similar to the OO or oxygen-treated worts, meaning that there is sufficient oxygen in the wort for the yeast to do their thing.

This is a critical point: OO appears to be able to substitute for oxygen because that OO-wort fermented similarly to oxygen-treated wort. However, if the oxygen treated ferments similarly to no-oxygen wort, then OO does not have an effect after all (nor does oxygen, in this system anyway).

broadbill said:

I don't anybody out-rightly rejects the conclusions, it think they are questioning the jump in logic between what how the experiments were done in the thesis and what homebrewers are doing now.

Hull's thesis work was adding OO to stored yeast, but homebrewers have extrapolated this work to suggest that adding OO to wort directly is going to have some effect. As Denny has pointed out (and his friend's tasting experiment shows), adding OO in this fashion does not have any significant effect.

Click to expand...

Wasn’t Vance’s experiment done with the toothpick method? A microscopic amount of oil in 5 gallons?

From “someone at New Belgium.” in the original post

For the volume of wort we normally ferment, we would pitch about 4500L of yeast, and to that we would add around 300mL of olive oil. To translate that into a 5 gallon size, you would need to measure about 0.0000833mL of olive oil.

Click to expand...

OK they were using 1mg/25 billion cells. Mr Malty says 5 gallons of 1.057 wort should be pitched with 198 billion cells.So that’s 7.92 mg. Oleic acid is .895 g/mL so that’s .0088 mL, about a fifth of a drop.

Somewhere in the thread, somebody calculated .083 mL. I checked it and it seemed right at the time. I don’t remember how it was figured.

Looking at it another way, 2100hL is about 11000 five gal batches. 300ml/11000 is .027 mL, half a drop. Still in the ballpark. About a hundred times closer than “someone at New Belgium.”

From the original thesis:

as the amount of olive oil was increased with each trial, the fermentation performance improved. It is possible that the rate of fermentation and the ratio of esters to higher alcohols could be improved if the amount of olive oil addition were increased beyond the rate of 1 mg / 25 billion cells. For this brand, the increase in total esters was perceived as preferable by the flavor panel.

Click to expand...

So, more is better, at least up to a point. And, if you read the thesis you’ll find that they added it to the yeast five hours before the pitch.

Tried the olive oil on an English Mild I just brewed. I won't get much evidence out of this since I didn't split the batches. Once I've completed my 10 gallon brew setup, I will split up that first batch into two.

Either way, I'll post the results of the brew as soon as it's finished.

As I mentioned, my experiment isn't very scientific. However, I wanted to report that my English Mild turned out fantastic. Used only Olive Oil with very minimal amount of splashing / aeration while transferring from kettle to fermenter.

Haputanlas said:

As I mentioned, my experiment isn't very scientific. However, I wanted to report that my English Mild turned out fantastic. Used only Olive Oil with very minimal amount of splashing / aeration while transferring from kettle to fermenter.

Click to expand...

Something like a mild doesn't need much oxygenation if you use a healthy starter. Thanks for the info and let us know if you do other beers like this.

Hermit said:

Something like a mild doesn't need much oxygenation if you use a healthy starter. Thanks for the info and let us know if you do other beers like this.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Part of the point for me using this method on the mild was the fact that it should be low risk.

Just re-brewed an Amber that I've done a few times, same process, hit my target OG. Never able to get it down the last few points though. Used a tiny drop into my already complete starter (was fresh yeast, made a starter, sat for 5 days before I cooled it to knock down the yeast), about 5 hours before it was needed for pitching. If I can finally get this down an extra couple of points for the FG, I'll have a bit more evidence whether or not this was impactful. and can compare the taste to the last batch. Should know something in ~6 weeks.

luke2080 said:

Just re-brewed an Amber that I've done a few times, same process, hit my target OG. Never able to get it down the last few points though. Used a tiny drop into my already complete starter (was fresh yeast, made a starter, sat for 5 days before I cooled it to knock down the yeast), about 5 hours before it was needed for pitching. If I can finally get this down an extra couple of points for the FG, I'll have a bit more evidence whether or not this was impactful. and can compare the taste to the last batch. Should know something in ~6 weeks.

Click to expand...

But without splitting the batch for a control, how will you know that anything is due to the OO?

Denny said:

But without splitting the batch for a control, how will you know that anything is due to the OO?

Click to expand...

I was running off the fact that I've brewed this enough without other variables changing. Easier to make the one starter than 2.

But I've had to add a heating element to the ferm chamber thanks to winter, and am using it for a slightly different fermentation temp schedule, so I've messed up my poor pretend control of previous batches.

Sill, I'll post the results as a comparison when I have it. If the OO shows decent results, maybe I'll take the next step and do an actual controlled experiment or two.

It seems to me that people keep proving over and over that OO doesn't hurt anything. I'm on board with that. What I'm looking for is evidence that it actually helps.