Using Olive oil instead of Oxygen

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
aaronbeach said:
The thread seems to strayed away from the primary goal of the paper. The reason for adding oleic acid (and avoid aeration) was to reduce oxidative effects in aging (hence the progressive experiments with longer warm stored beers) i.e. a more stable flavor profile.

Any tests evaluating the value of olive oil (oleic acid) additions to avoid aeration for the purpose of reducing oxidative effects in aging should evaluate the flavor profile at different ages under varying storage conditions. The discussion in this tread seems to be focused on whether or not the beer comes out tasting alright and retains its head, which while related, are not the primary point of the paper.


Has anybody evaluated flavor stability over a long period of time?
Click to expand...

I just used a small drop of olive oil in the fermenter for a barleywine that I wanted to get a lot of alcohol out of. I used the olive oil in addition to the aeration to strengthen the yeast against the high alcohol. I got an American Ale to produce 12% alcohol, over a percent past it's expected level. Seemed to do the job, and the beer tastes great. It is undergoing it's conditioning cycles, and will be tasting it again in 3 months. I will be tasting this over the next couple years, and will update this post, but I did not do it as a replacement of aeration, rather as additional nutrients for the yeast to last the long journey.
 
But you didn't have a control to check it against. It possibly/likely would have done the same thing without OO.
 
Denny said:
But you didn't have a control to check it against. It possibly/likely would have done the same thing without OO.
Click to expand...

I did not do it as an experiment, I did it to get better results than I have in the past. Not only is the beer 12%, I am adding whiskey to bring it up another 1-1.5%. I am going to give a chance to the yeast with the added olive oil to try and carbonate the beer, rather than having to add a belgian or champagne yeast like in the past.
 
In this case (using oleic acid to increase yeast resistence/health in high ethanol environment) the research is already done (hence we don't really need to conduct our own research)

read "High-Gravity Brewing: Effects of Nutrition on Yeast Composition, Fermentative Ability, and Alcohol Production" in which oleic acid, ergosterol, and a nitrogenized source are used to supplement anaerobic and semi-anaerobic fermentations. While the paper finds success with this approach it also finds that consecutive aeration on days 1,2 and 3 with O2 can also achieve about the same results...

interesting quote from the paper for those planning to use oleic acid supplementation:

"Analysis of the levels of FAN before and after fermentation illustrates that in the presence of added lipids, usable nitrogen is, indeed, growth limiting and that the simultaneous presence of preformed lipids or oxygen is required for full utilization of such nitrogenous constituents"

Bottom line, use yeast extract (servomyces would work) along with oleic acid for proper results and if possible get an ergosterol supplement - however be careful it's hazmat!

Suggested amounts were .8% yeast extract (just use suggested servomyces amount), 24 ppm ergosterol and .24% (vol/vol) Tween 80 (their oleic acid source)

their test examples were repeatedly (repitched yeast) producing 16.2% alcohol in about 4 or 5 days of fermentation (anaerobically or semi-anaerobically) at 14 degrees celcius w/ lager yeast (in the 1980's - i.e. regular molson lager yeast)
 
aaronbeach said:
In this case (using oleic acid to increase yeast resistence/health in high ethanol environment) the research is already done (hence we don't really need to conduct our own research)

read "High-Gravity Brewing: Effects of Nutrition on Yeast Composition, Fermentative Ability, and Alcohol Production" in which oleic acid, ergosterol, and a nitrogenized source are used to supplement anaerobic and semi-anaerobic fermentations. While the paper finds success with this approach it also finds that consecutive aeration on days 1,2 and 3 with O2 can also achieve about the same results...

interesting quote from the paper for those planning to use oleic acid supplementation:

"Analysis of the levels of FAN before and after fermentation illustrates that in the presence of added lipids, usable nitrogen is, indeed, growth limiting and that the simultaneous presence of preformed lipids or oxygen is required for full utilization of such nitrogenous constituents"

Bottom line, use yeast extract (servomyces would work) along with oleic acid for proper results and if possible get an ergosterol supplement - however be careful it's hazmat!

Suggested amounts were .8% yeast extract (just use suggested servomyces amount), 24 ppm ergosterol and .24% (vol/vol) Tween 80 (their oleic acid source)

their test examples were repeatedly (repitched yeast) producing 16.2% alcohol in about 4 or 5 days of fermentation (anaerobically or semi-anaerobically) at 14 degrees celcius w/ lager yeast (in the 1980's - i.e. regular molson lager yeast)
Click to expand...

Wow, great reference, this is what I was asking for weeks back. It seemed combining the O2, OO, and a little yeast nutrient (nitrogens) seemed to do the trick.
 
To measure .083mL (assuming that correction is accurate) we'll round up to 0.1mL

1 US teaspoon is 4.92 mL. Let's round that up to 5mL in a teaspoon (because you'll lose a little bit that sticks on your measuring spoon, compensates for rounding up from .083 to .1 in the previous paragraph)

Mix 1 teaspoon in a gallon of water. Use a little lemon juice to emulsify. Pour out half the gallon, top back up with water and emulsify again. Now you have 2.5 mL.

Repeat, and you've got 1.25 mL.

Pour out one cup and you've got about .083

Make yeast starter.

No sophisticated scientific instruments required.
 
I've been using this method for a little while now, and I've had very health ferments.

As people said before, the math was wrong in the brewcast:

"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.
Click to expand...

The typical 5 gal batch needs around 100-500ml of yeast slurry.

300ml divided by 4500L yeast is 0.067. Therefore we need 0.067ml Olive Oil per liter of yeast. That's acutally not that hard to get right. One drop from a medical dropper is 0.051ml for reference.

So for a 1L starter(100ml of yeast) you'd need around 0.0067ml of oil olive. the smallest drop you can get on a toothpick should be plenty close.
 
I am interested in this to see if, like o2, this will aid attenuation. I am going to make a 1.200 starter with dme and olive oil and toss in some WLP099 and see how far it can go with no aeration.
 
I'd like to point out that there's one really practical reason for using olive oil instead of aerating, besides the theoretical issue re: oxydization -- namely, it's a convenience tool for the lazy, cheap and/or forgetful brewer. More than once I've pitched my yeast and realized at 2:00 a.m. that I forgot to aerate. My aeration method is the paint-stirrer-and-electric-drill method -- i.e., it's cheap and simple, but also kind of time consuming, and annoying and noisy. If I can avoid that trouble with one eensy-weensy drop of olive oil, why not? Or if I were thinking about spending money on an oxygen injection setup, why wouldn't I save that money if using a tiny amount of olive oil would produce reasonably comparable results?

Now, before anyone points it out, I am aware that the theory says that olive oil would need to be in contact with the yeast for some hours before pitching. This makes sense to me, as much as any of the other theory around it.

But the really important question, it seems to me, is whether olive-oiled beer comes out reasonably close to being as good as traditionally aerated beer. My experience is that it does. I've used olive oil when making a starter, I've used it when pitching the yeast, and I've added it directly to the wort some time after I pitched the yeast (i.e., the 2 a.m. scenario). In every instance the results were, for all practical purposes, equally as good as any other batch I've made.

Can I _prove_ that olive oil works as well as a fancy aeration system? No I can't, but for that matter, I haven't done any scientific studies to document whether my regular aeration method produces results superior to not aerating at all. I'm really just following the theory and advice of others with more knowledge and experience than I have. But I can tell you this for sure: I and everyone else who drinks my homebrew thinks it's consistently great, whether paint-stirred or olive-oiled, and that's evidence enough for me that olive oil is a worthwhile tool in the lazy/cheap/hurried/forgetful brewer's toolkit.

Just my 2 cents ... YMMV. I'm not trying to refute the very good arguments made against using olive oil. Rather I'm trying as always to relax more and worry less, and if olive oil serves that purpose then I'm all for it.
 
hrangil said:
I'd like to point out that there's one really practical reason for using olive oil instead of aerating, besides the theoretical issue re: oxydization -- namely, it's a convenience tool for the lazy, cheap and/or forgetful brewer. More than once I've pitched my yeast and realized at 2:00 a.m. that I forgot to aerate. My aeration method is the paint-stirrer-and-electric-drill method -- i.e., it's cheap and simple, but also kind of time consuming, and annoying and noisy. If I can avoid that trouble with one eensy-weensy drop of olive oil, why not? Or if I were thinking about spending money on an oxygen injection setup, why wouldn't I save that money if using a tiny amount of olive oil would produce reasonably comparable results?

Now, before anyone points it out, I am aware that the theory says that olive oil would need to be in contact with the yeast for some hours before pitching. This makes sense to me, as much as any of the other theory around it.

But the really important question, it seems to me, is whether olive-oiled beer comes out reasonably close to being as good as traditionally aerated beer. My experience is that it does. I've used olive oil when making a starter, I've used it when pitching the yeast, and I've added it directly to the wort some time after I pitched the yeast (i.e., the 2 a.m. scenario). In every instance the results were, for all practical purposes, equally as good as any other batch I've made.

Can I _prove_ that olive oil works as well as a fancy aeration system? No I can't, but for that matter, I haven't done any scientific studies to document whether my regular aeration method produces results superior to not aerating at all. I'm really just following the theory and advice of others with more knowledge and experience than I have. But I can tell you this for sure: I and everyone else who drinks my homebrew thinks it's consistently great, whether paint-stirred or olive-oiled, and that's evidence enough for me that olive oil is a worthwhile tool in the lazy/cheap/hurried/forgetful brewer's toolkit.

Just my 2 cents ... YMMV. I'm not trying to refute the very good arguments made against using olive oil. Rather I'm trying as always to relax more and worry less, and if olive oil serves that purpose then I'm all for it.
Click to expand...

In my experience, you don't need to let the olive oil stay in contact with the yeast, just one drop in the fermenter.

Let's get down to brass tacks, there is proof that OO is just as good as oxygen, and even proof it extends the shelf life of beer. There is absolutely NO proof that OO ruins beer if used at the right amount. Let's call this what it is, people are not comfortable changing their ways. Science has backed up OO usage, and for some reason the brewing crowd ignores this, even though science has so much do to with brewing. This thread won't change people's minds. In my search for OO usage documentation, I've found NUMEROUS experiments that support OO usage, and almost none that don't.

I have a PDF of a very well done experiment, but cannot post a PDF.
 
Being a great risk taker, I decided to test this out, and so far, it's working better than I expected. I used a lab doser to get .3ml OO ontop of my pitched batch, I poured the wort hot, topped with distilled water mindful of stopping areation during the process (no glugging sound, no splashing), and I hadn't oxygenated at all once it cooled, (liquids hold less gas at higher temps). I started with beer at 1.100, using wyeast American Ale II 1272 from a slant bumped up 3 times to a 2000ml 1.040 starter.

The next day, the blowoff began. now it's dropped to 1.081 in 48 hours.

For comparrison, I took a half gallon out after yeast pitching, before OO addition, and it hasn't blown off yet, gravity is only down to at 1.092. I am acctually afraid of it stalling, though I can aerate the small batch if I want to stop worrying, so... LETS GO SCIENCE!!

TL;DR: side by side comparrison shows faster fermentation and healthier activity with just a drop of Olive Oil.
 
agenthucky said:
I have a PDF of a very well done experiment, but cannot post a PDF.
Click to expand...

We all know the one you are referring to (the Grady Hull experiment), and we already discussed in this very thread. Its a flawed experiment, for many reasons.


agenthucky said:
I've found NUMEROUS experiments that support OO usage,
Click to expand...


Please post them. I'm only familar with the one done by Grady Hull, the pdf I believe you are referring to above.

agenthucky said:
and almost none that don't.
Click to expand...

How do you prove a negative? You can't = science fail.
 
Brad1775 said:
Being a great risk taker, I decided to test this out, and so far, it's working better than I expected. I used a lab doser to get .3ml OO ontop of my pitched batch, I poured the wort hot, topped with distilled water mindful of stopping areation during the process (no glugging sound, no splashing), and I hadn't oxygenated at all once it cooled, (liquids hold less gas at higher temps). I started with beer at 1.100, using wyeast American Ale II 1272 from a slant bumped up 3 times to a 2000ml 1.040 starter.

The next day, the blowoff began. now it's dropped to 1.081 in 48 hours.

For comparrison, I took a half gallon out after yeast pitching, before OO addition, and it hasn't blown off yet, gravity is only down to at 1.092. I am acctually afraid of it stalling, though I can aerate the small batch if I want to stop worrying, so... LETS GO SCIENCE!!

TL;DR: side by side comparrison shows faster fermentation and healthier activity with just a drop of Olive Oil.
Click to expand...

How do you know that the difference in your half-gallon "untreated" sample isn't due to putting it into a smaller vessel or otherwise splitting/moving it from the original sample? You didn't control for this , and therefore you can't make any meaningful interpretations from this experiment.

Besides, Hull's thesis paper showed that olive oil caused an increase in fermentation time, not a decrease as your experiment is appears to be showing (as much as a single gravity sample is indicative of).
 
I agree that the transfer from the larger bucket and carboy size need to be controlled for, as would be the scientific standard, but you are totally crushing the spirit of the experiment! Unless we are all in a clean lab, any experiment that ANY of us do would be subject to flaws. Anecdotal observation is the best advise we can hope for on here, and Brad took it one step further with a fairly good side by side comparison for us. Keep us posted Brad. I would like to hear how the batches progress.
 
Agreed. There haven't been enough scientific tests on this. But the anecdotal evidence that it helps is pretty good. Considering that there are no noticeable negative effects from using a single drop of OO in a 5 gallon batch, there's no reason not to continue doing it if it has worked so far. I do it because I've gotten some crazy attenuation with good ester profiles without any extra aeration. Simply siphoning the wort into a bucket and putting a drop of OO has worked incredibly well for me.
 
broadbill said:
How do you prove a negative? You can't = science fail.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to proving a negative, I was stating that there are almost NO results from OO experimentation that I have found that say there are reasons not to use it. An overwhelming response of "not much of a difference" is what people get. I've yet to find an experiment that comes to the conclusion that a cause of an imperfection was caused by OO when using it. Not the proof of what OO doesn't do, but results from when people have used it.

The benefits are (or at least being tested)
A) Theoretically less O2 in the system, less was introduced, meaning less is in the system.
B) Less work introducing O2 into the system
C) What is believed to be 'healthier' yeast in regards to fermentation time. (Autolysis experiments would be great)
D) Better Attenuation

I have seen these results, albeit in some amateur experiments, but universally across the board.

The only thing I see in this board is people being uncomfortable with trying a new method. Their biggest fear, the precognition that oil harms head retention (Even though there are compounds in the OO that are KNOWN to be beneficial to the yeast's lifecycle). And although there isn't a formal corporate funded experiment to say that it doesn't, many have experienced great head retention even in regards to the difficulty of dosing properly on the homebrew scale, myself included. No controls, no comparison, just the fact that adding a small amount of OO did NOT ruin head retention (In fact, it was silky smooth on my barleywine). Experimentation can only help us learn more about this. Starters, lifespan, all those things DO need to be experimented on. Pooh-poohing it isn't helping anyone, other than scientific ignorance.

And what went wrong with the Hull experiment? I don't see any reasons, just a claim that it was a bust.
 
agenthucky said:
In my experience, you don't need to let the olive oil stay in contact with the yeast, just one drop in the fermenter.

Let's get down to brass tacks, there is proof that OO is just as good as oxygen, and even proof it extends the shelf life of beer. There is absolutely NO proof that OO ruins beer if used at the right amount. Let's call this what it is, people are not comfortable changing their ways. Science has backed up OO usage, and for some reason the brewing crowd ignores this, even though science has so much do to with brewing. This thread won't change people's minds. In my search for OO usage documentation, I've found NUMEROUS experiments that support OO usage, and almost none that don't.

I have a PDF of a very well done experiment, but cannot post a PDF.
Click to expand...

There is really no scientific proof that OO would help the home brewer. The evidence for large commercial operations is in the infancy stage and I would have to say, based on what I have read, that there isn't enough evidence for a large brewery to risk switching over to OO.

It isn't a matter of how well it does or does not work. It comes down to repeatability and the risk involved, which I doubt most large breweries are willing to do right now.

If the industry ever goes to OO, I doubt I will be around to see it. I admit it makes sense, but economics also plays a role.

As a home-brewer I have tried the OO and decided it isn't worth it. I am getting about the same unscientifically sound results. :)
 
beerman1957 said:
It comes down to repeatability and the risk involved, which I doubt most large breweries are willing to do right now.

If the industry ever goes to OO, I doubt I will be around to see it. I admit it makes sense, but economics also plays a role.
Click to expand...

I fully agree, imagine the cost of the quantities of OO would be for a large scale brewery. As for it's practicality, it's just another tool for the homebrewer's arsenal.
 
agenthucky said:
I fully agree, imagine the cost of the quantities of OO would be for a large scale brewery. As for it's practicality, it's just another tool for the homebrewer's arsenal.
Click to expand...

I think, rather, that the brewery wouldn't want to risk failure of product. Head retention is probably the least of the worries. I would worry about actual yeast propagation, taste, effective yield, overall quality and repeatability. They tend to stay with what they know works. I can also see Dogfish Head just trying it to prove it works... or not. I wouldn't do it even as a microbrewer until I saw real science and statistical results. Most breweries just can't afford to lose a product or even take a chance on it.
 
beerman1957 said:
I think, rather, that the brewery wouldn't want to risk failure of product. Head retention is probably the least of the worries. I would worry about actual yeast propagation, taste, effective yield, overall quality and repeatability. They tend to stay with what they know works. I can also see Dogfish Head just trying it to prove it works... or not. I wouldn't do it even as a microbrewer until I saw real science and statistical results. Most breweries just can't afford to lose a product or even take a chance on it.
Click to expand...
From what I've read the amount is rather miniscule. Head retention and flavor wouldn't be a concern.
 
It really may just come down to ain't broke don't fix it. I'll have to post a little experiment I did with this a long while back. I had 6 one gallon jugs three with 5mico-l of OO 2 aerated with O2 one I did nothing.(I think) all pitched with a standard pitching rate of 1e6 cells/ ml/deg Plato. The OO attenuated a couple days faster, but they all reached the same terminal gravity, and tasted the same, with no effect on head retention.


none O2 O2 OO OO OO
1 2 3 4 5 6
0hr 1.052 1.052 1.052 1.052 1.052 1.052
12hr 1.048 1.052 1.052 1.052 1.052 1.052
24hr 1.044 1.046 1.046 1.048 1.048 1.048
36hr 1.041 1.043 1.043 1.043 1.043 1.044
48hr 1.038 1.038 1.038 1.038 1.038 1.038
72hr 1.036 1.036 1.036 1.034 1.034 1.034
96hr 1.031 1.031 1.031 1.028 1.028 1.028
120hr1.026 1.022 1.022 1.014 1.014 1.014
216hr1.012 1.012 1.012 1.012 1.012 1.012
 
Bsquared said:
It really may just come down to ain't broke don't fix it. I'll have to post a little experiment I did with this a long while back. I had 6 one gallon jugs three with 5mico-l of OO 2 aerated with O2 one I did nothing.(I think) all pitched with a standard pitching rate of 1e6 cells/ ml/deg Plato. The OO attenuated a couple days faster, but they all reached the same terminal gravity, and tasted the same, with no effect on head retention.


none O2 O2 OO OO OO
1 2 3 4 5 6
0hr 1.052 1.052 1.052 1.052 1.052 1.052
12hr 1.048 1.052 1.052 1.052 1.052 1.052
24hr 1.044 1.046 1.046 1.048 1.048 1.048
36hr 1.041 1.043 1.043 1.043 1.043 1.044
48hr 1.038 1.038 1.038 1.038 1.038 1.038
72hr 1.036 1.036 1.036 1.034 1.034 1.034
96hr 1.031 1.031 1.031 1.028 1.028 1.028
120hr1.026 1.022 1.022 1.014 1.014 1.014
216hr1.012 1.012 1.012 1.012 1.012 1.012
Click to expand...

This is more or less what Grady Hull's experiment found as well. There is a (mistaken) perceived notion out there that OO actually affects attenuation. The data does not support this.
 
I dont think anyone expects it to affect attenuation. But it might help the yeast get high attenuation if there is not enough o2. If this test had been done in a high gravity beer, maybe the results would be different.
 
We also have to take into account that most of us are accidentally aerating during our transfer. I also constantly shake my starters with OCD precision.

From my perspective, the only conclusive tests would be high gravity brews in a closed system where we can be sure no o2 is being introduced after the boil. One with no aeration or OO, one with o2, and one with just OO.
 
I wish I had a way to test this for you guys!!!... side by side like that sounds killer, but until that wireless gravity meter makes its way to my house.... I apologize.
 
dang it..... it seems to have stalled for me :-( but I didn't get to oxygenate as I hoped to, forwhatever reason. I stirred vigorously and added another starter of yeast, but hey, high gravity is chalenging for a reason, and I love that I might finally "fail" at beer
 
Brad1775 said:
dang it..... it seems to have stalled for me :-( but I didn't get to oxygenate as I hoped to, forwhatever reason. I stirred vigorously and added another starter of yeast, but hey, high gravity is chalenging for a reason, and I love that I might finally "fail" at beer
Click to expand...

Try this before you throw it out:

1. Elevate the wort to 72F/22C or even to 75F/24C

2. Get some of the wort and get a starter culture going with a fresh yeast batch.

3. Add yeast nutrient. Available at LBS.

4. Oxygenate with pure O2 if you can. If that isn't possible, shake the wort vigorously.

I think this could restart the process. I think your yeast is just exhausted and would probably come back.
 
yes, that is gooood advice. I have done 2 and 3, acctually added trappist high gravity, becuase I bought the wrong yeast to start, but no harm in taking it to THAT yeast's max and then adding WLP099 right??

Certainly going to buy an O2 setup, and get a reading on my fermentation temps, I bet it was a little low, I am turning my thermostat up a bit :) good an excuse as any right???, I used the only bucket without an LCD thermometer on it (can't wait to get a "Beer Bug")
 
Brad1775 said:
yes, that is gooood advice. I have done 2 and 3, acctually added trappist high gravity, becuase I bought the wrong yeast to start, but no harm in taking it to THAT yeast's max and then adding WLP099 right??

Certainly going to buy an O2 setup, and get a reading on my fermentation temps, I bet it was a little low, I am turning my thermostat up a bit :) good an excuse as any right???, I used the only bucket without an LCD thermometer on it (can't wait to get a "Beer Bug")
Click to expand...


Just curious where you found out about the "beer bug". a co-worker of mine works at that company. didn't think it was near production.
 
Brad1775 said:
yes, that is gooood advice. I have done 2 and 3, acctually added trappist high gravity, becuase I bought the wrong yeast to start, but no harm in taking it to THAT yeast's max and then adding WLP099 right??

Certainly going to buy an O2 setup, and get a reading on my fermentation temps, I bet it was a little low, I am turning my thermostat up a bit :) good an excuse as any right???, I used the only bucket without an LCD thermometer on it (can't wait to get a "Beer Bug")
Click to expand...

At this point I would do what ever it takes. Sure, it may taste a bit "bread-y" but throwing it out is bad too. I once had a batch stick so badly that I took the entire batch and reheated it to about 50C/180F. I was just at the end of the rope here. So, I cooked the yeast to death then re-pitched again. I added two yeast packs and one yeast nutrient and I shook the hell out of my conical fermenter.
Miracle that it actually worked. I can't say it was the best beer I ever drank but it was passable.

I named it Resurrection Ale. I hope I never have to do it again.
 
In the end it restarted pretty quickly, I just added the high gravity yeast, and some sugar, but forgot that I hadn't checked the gravity when it stalled.... it was fine in the end, I haven't finished primary, let alone the several months of secondary, but.... this should be some awesome beer.
 
Okay, I am violating several rules, here. First, this is an old and moldy thread. Second, I'm a distiller, not a brewer. And third, I have no experience in any of this.

That being said, what theeeeeee crap are you guys talking about? I joined just now to simply post about this issue because what is being discussed is just out in the ozone. Anyone ever read the ENTIRE masters thesis by Hull? He wasn't adding OO to the entire wort; he said-
The purpose of this research was to compare the effects of adding olive oil to storage yeast vs. traditional wort aeration. The theory is that the oleic acid in the olive oil will provide the UFAs necessary for yeast growth and proper fermentation, eliminating the need for wort aeration.
Click to expand...

That means pre-treating the yeast slurry with oleic acid, replacing the typical process of aerating the entire wort, and thereby improving the resistance to oxidative staling.

This entire thing about micrograms of OO is just pathetic. If anyone ever bothered to read and understand his paper, and I quote-
Due to the variation in yeast slurry thickness the amount of olive oil used was based on the total number of cells instead of mg / L of yeast. In the 360 hl batch the olive oil was added to the yeast at a rate of 1 mg / 67 billion cells pitched (15 mg olive oil / L of yeast assuming a count of 1 billion cells / ml). In the 720 hl trial the concentration was increased to 1 mg / 50 billion cells and in the 2100 hl trials the concentration was increased again to 1 mg / 25 billion cells. Aside from the changes previously mentioned with aeration, olive oil addition and fermentation size, all other aspects of production were carried out identically for both the tests and the controls.
Click to expand...

What part of this thesis scales down to micro milliliters per 5 gallon batches? His final (successful, btw) ratio was 1 mg per 25 billion cells of pitched yeast. A five gram packet of dried yeast has 90 billion active yeast cells. If you didn't even grow a starter, that is still 3.6 milligrams of olive oil (or 72 normal drops) per liter STARTER. This whole micro-pipette, micro-milliliter discussion is off the charts. And the kicker is that Hull was scaling UP his experiment from many papers that dealt with <1 liter experiments with oleic acid and ergosterol supplementation.

No wonder that experiments with microliters of OO are anecdotal, that is just silly. Try a milliliter or two with a liter starter (not to mention a 20 liter wort) and you might get close to actually testing Hull's hypothesis. And, btw, his results were that a fully qualified panel of expert tasters found his OO batches the same, or slightly better, than the control. Screw you who say that there isn't any scientific evidence. Impanel your own expert tasters to disagree.

As for the claim that if it worked, they would still be using it, you have to read the ENTIRE paper. The drawback wasn't that it didn't work, or that it negatively affected flavor, but that it took slightly longer to attenuate. In the end, economy of production ruled that it wasn't worth the extra fermentation time, not that it didn't accomplish what it set out to do, and that was to stabilize flavor by replacing initial oxidation of the wort.
 
I agree with your dissertation. That is part of the reason why it died a long ago.
 
Cheers Don mogur,

I have never understood why this topic is so emotional. The debate has often been ignorant and irrational. It’s refreshing that someone actually read the paper and the thread. People react viscerally to the idea of oil in their beer, even if it’s in the starter and it’s completely metabolized.

I routinely add 5-6 drops of oil to a half liter starter and it seems to help. It’s not huge, but I don’t see a downside. This is in addition to the aeration from glugging into the carboy through a funnel.

When this first came to my attention years ago, I did two test batches. The olive oil batch had less of a peak in the fermentation. Less high krausen but finishing out about the same time.

Hopefully we can revisit this without the bias. Probably not.
 
I liked what mogur said, but a mL of olive oil would weigh 920 mg, so at a rate of of 1 mg / 25 billion cells, even 200 billion cells would have you using less than 0.01 ml, so while isn't isn't micro milliliters, it is still microliters. Maybe a quick spray of olive oil cooking spray would do the trick, just not sure about how the soy lecithin and propellant would affect things.
 
ianmatth said:
I liked what mogur said, but a mL of olive oil would weigh 920 mg, so at a rate of of 1 mg / 25 billion cells, even 200 billion cells would have you using less than 0.01 ml, so while isn't isn't micro milliliters, it is still microliters. Maybe a quick spray of olive oil cooking spray would do the trick, just not sure about how the soy lecithin and propellant would affect things.
Click to expand...

I didn't read the whole thread, so the information may be there, but they say, if you dip the end of a toothpick in a drop of oil, and then dip the toothpick in the beer, you have added too much.
 
>.I didn't read the whole thread, so the information may be there, but they say, if you dip the end of a toothpick in a drop of oil, and then dip the toothpick in the beer, you have added too much.

So what if you add an "extra" fraction of one drop. Assuming it's not infected, what possible harm can it cause?
 

Similar threads

Luxy
Using left over in the fermenter immediately for the next batch.
Replies
14
Views
598
BongoYodeler
BongoYodeler
mongoose33
Oxygenating Dry Yeast issue
Replies
9
Views
939
Red over White
Red over White
VTMongoose
Excessive sulfur (H2S) production during Hefeweizen fermentation with W68 (WY3068/WLP300/OYL-21) that lingers
Replies
23
Views
1K
AlcheMania
AlcheMania
orgenomescii
Brewing like a Barbarian: Ancient Irish Descriptions of Malting & Brewing
Replies
2
Views
1K
McMullan
McMullan
AlcheMania
Pressure cooker: A decoction hack?
2 3
Replies
85
Views
4K
MicroMickey
MicroMickey
InkBird 300

Latest posts

Back
Top