Olive Oil - Testing

broadbill said:

I'll wait to be proven wrong and will admit it cheerily if the day ever comes. I would LOVE to be able to add OO and be done with it; unfortunately it doesn't seem to work, despite how much people want it to work.

Click to expand...

THIS^^^. I mean, I'm all about experimenting, which is why I'm writing a book called "Experimental Brewing". We even included an experiment about using OO so people could decide for themselves. But that doesn't mean that I'm not skeptical. There is a complete lack of evidence that OO works for anything other than yeast storage, and the results from doing even that were not good.

Denny said:

But what makes you think it will work when there's no evidence? When the guy who wrote the paper says it won't? When the brewery that tried using it (albeit in another way) stopped because their beer was sub par after using it? Why not spend $15 for a MixStir and get something that will definitely work? If you want to try OO, that's up to you. It's just hard for me to understand why.

Click to expand...

Well i have read the thesis by Hull and to me the conclusion seemed like that olive oil "aerated" beer (but otherwise not aerated) was not too much different from the control beers which were aerated much better than anything i will ever be able to do at home. (they reached saturation)

So in my mind it looks like this in terms of fermentation quality:

professionally aerated beers>olive oil aerated beers>my beers

So i thought that using OO would still be an upgrade.

broadbill said:

Why do you think your oxygenating practices are subpar? Do you have an actual problem with the beer you make?

Click to expand...

Well i have never been able to make a non-estery fermentation with US-05 yet while it is supposed to be clean. I have never seen higher krausen than 3/4 inch and that was just foam not that thick stuff i can see on the pictures and generally my beers need to spend more time in the bottle than the beers of the more experienced guys here. (my temp-control is pretty good)

broadbill said:

The point here is it has been tried and it doesn't appear to have an effect. Go back and read the threads at least, at least see what has been done. We've argued this to death, only to have more people try more experiments....where are the results of those experiments by the way? My hope is that Denny and I goaded them enough that they would at least come back to rub our noses in it if they had positive results. The fact they haven't tells me they found no effect, just like the previous experiments.

Sure, maybe dissolving the OO in EtOH is the key to it all, but keep in mind some random blogger came up with that idea (sure, a smart science guy, but it is still untested). Again, previous studies suggest that it is unlikely.

I'll wait to be proven wrong and will admit it cheerily if the day ever comes. I would LOVE to be able to add OO and be done with it; unfortunately it doesn't seem to work, despite how much people want it to work.

Click to expand...

I have read a few threads about using OO and the thesis i mentioned but i have never seen a test where non-aerated but OO added beer was compared with a non-aerated beer using liquid yeast. I think a test like this would be useful.

I made the previous post because I hadn't heard of this idea, and wanted to see if the ratios being thrown about had any validity based on what was known about yeast metabolism. For my job, I've done some engineering of fatty acid production in microorganisms (to make biofuels) so I had a little background and a lot of curiosity and wanted to contribute my thoughts in this thread for those planning to trying it out.

I was surprised to see that the numbers used in this thread matched closely to what would be expected based on yeast composition. Whether supplementing that amount makes better beer is a huuuge leap. For one, there are already fatty acids in barley that could account for this requirement.

My gut is that proper pitching rates would have a greater impact, because the 'problem' being overcome is insufficient yeast growth. The cause is secondary in importance. I know you want to leave appropriate room for growth to contribute proper flavor, so the relative importance of growth (O2) vs yeast number (pitching) is probably style dependent. OO, if it worked, wouldn't be a fix-all but just another factor to consider in specific situations. I don't supplement O2 so I'll leave the interpretation to those with more experience.

I'm not endorsing the method as I haven't tried it, but the ratios seem in the right range and the ethanol is definitely something that would be done in my lab were we trying something similar (adding an immiscible compound to cell culture media). Speaking as a researcher, doing an experiment 100 times but leaving out a critical detail makes 100 pointless experiments. I'm glad we're all skeptical here, but as long as people keep trying to improve the process, is it really valuable to discourage them? I for one would be interested in the result in a truly extreme case: big beer, no oxygen, underpitched, with or without dissolved OO.

The_Glue said:

Well i have read the thesis by Hull and to me the conclusion seemed like that olive oil "aerated" beer (but otherwise not aerated) was not too much different from the control beers which were aerated much better than anything i will ever be able to do at home. (they reached saturation)

So in my mind it looks like this in terms of fermentation quality:

professionally aerated beers>olive oil aerated beers>my beers

So i thought that using OO would still be an upgrade.

Click to expand...

You should re-read the thesis, as the goal of the study was to characterize OO as a supplement for yeast storage and its effects on subsequent fermentation. This is much different from saying that you can use OO as a substitute for normal wort aeration, which is is conclusion you and many other have jumped to. There are quite a few caveats to making that conclusion, and those people who have done the actual experiments have found that it doesn't seem to work.

As an aside, nowhere in Hull's thesis did they establish that they were oxygenating to saturation, or that there was low levels of oxygen in the wort to start with, before their normal oxygenation process.

The_Glue said:

Well i have never been able to make a non-estery fermentation with US-05 yet while it is supposed to be clean. I have never seen higher krausen than 3/4 inch and that was just foam not that thick stuff i can see on the pictures and generally my beers need to spend more time in the bottle than the beers of the more experienced guys here. (my temp-control is pretty good)

Click to expand...

Ester formation can be caused by many issues, and krausen level is indicative of nearly nothing. Are you even sure you are characterizing the off-flavor is esters? If you wanted to prove to yourself this is an aeration issue, a better approach would be to beg/borrow/steal and oxygenation stone and do a side-by-side with that (oxy vs. no oxy). Oxygenation stones directly increase the dissolved oxygen levels in wort.

Just how good is your temp control?
[/QUOTE]

The_Glue said:

I have read a few threads about using OO and the thesis i mentioned but i have never seen a test where non-aerated but OO added beer was compared with a non-aerated beer using liquid yeast. I think a test like this would be useful.

Click to expand...

See the OO threads on here; its been done.

The_Glue said:

Well i have read the thesis by Hull and to me the conclusion seemed like that olive oil "aerated" beer (but otherwise not aerated) was not too much different from the control beers which were aerated much better than anything i will ever be able to do at home. (they reached saturation)

So in my mind it looks like this in terms of fermentation quality:

professionally aerated beers>olive oil aerated beers>my beers

So i thought that using OO would still be an upgrade.




Well i have never been able to make a non-estery fermentation with US-05 yet while it is supposed to be clean. I have never seen higher krausen than 3/4 inch and that was just foam not that thick stuff i can see on the pictures and generally my beers need to spend more time in the bottle than the beers of the more experienced guys here. (my temp-control is pretty good)



I have read a few threads about using OO and the thesis i mentioned but i have never seen a test where non-aerated but OO added beer was compared with a non-aerated beer using liquid yeast. I think a test like this would be useful.

Click to expand...

OK, 1 by 1...

OO does not aerate your beer. It makes cells walls more flexible to promote cell budding. When you add oxygen to the beer, the yeast uses it to synthesize sterols for the same purpose. And if you've read the thesis, you know it was never intended to be used in fermentation and that the practice was stopped due to poor beer flavor.

One of the reasons you get esters with 05 is becasue it's an estery yeast. Myself and many others have noted a peach ester to it. In addition, it could come from your fermentation practices. It could be for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with aeration. And if it is due to lack of aeration, why not choose a proven method?

I have seen one very good homebrewer test and it indicated that OO did not produce a better beer than conventional aeration. If you're going to do a test, make sure to set it up properly and assess the results with an objective method like a triangle test.

The_Glue said:

I would add my own piss (in this miniscule amounts we are talking about here) to my beer if someone would say it helps oxygenating my wort.
By the way i want to add it because my wort oxygenating practices are sub par. (i just shake the carboy for a few seconds) And if olive really works it seems like it will be cheaper and safer than using oxygenating stones and pumps.
I already have vodka and olive oil, why shouldn't i try it? I will probably be able to do a comparison, i have some little 1 gal carboys since i am just in the process of upgrading from the stovetop (1 gal brews) to a 5 gal rig.

Click to expand...

If you'd piss in your beer to help oxygenate if someone said it helps, why wouldn't you oxygenate using one of the many other methods that many people say helps, i.e. oxygen tank / stone, 'venturi', aquarium pump, shake for more than a few seconds, rather than using snake oil (or in this case olive oil)?

Triangle test results!

Pissing in beer is considered an extreme brewing technique, just read the proper publication...

This is from an old post I did in a very long thread.

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.

Click to expand...

I don’t want to re-engage in debate on this. How do you debate nonsense and hysteria?

My point is that a microscopic amount in the wort isn’t going to do anything.
I use two drops in the starter. One guy actually used a mL with good results.

People that have tried it, generally are pleased with the result. People that have never tried it, are dead set against it. I have given up arguing about it. It’s my secret weapon.

What about those of us who have tried it and found no difference at all?

Are you talking about Vance's experiment with the toothpick? As I said before

My point is that a microscopic amount in the wort isn’t going to do anything.

Click to expand...

I used olive oil in starters for years. The difference is not huge, but it is substantial. The last time I ran this experiment I did a tasting for some experienced judges and they all perceived a difference. I ran these same beers by my homebrew club and it was about 40% liked the olive oil, 40% without and 20% had no preference. Nobody suggested there was no difference.

I prepared a triangle test, but it turns out I was unable to run it at the location I picked. By the time the beer had been hauled 3 round trips it was slightly oxidized and I didn’t do any more tests.

Wynne-R said:

It’s my secret weapon.

Click to expand...

Wynne-R said:

I ran these same beers by my homebrew club and it was about 40% liked the olive oil, 40% without and 20% had no preference.

Click to expand...

Not much of a secret weapon when over half either don't care for it, or don't care if it is there at all.