Ah, forgot you were doing it in the starter. Man, that seems ike it might be harder to quantify. I wish you luck. If I can convert that spreadsheet for ya, I'll let you know.
Olive Oil - Testing
- Thread starter luke2080
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk:
Im not down with the math, but I get it on a superficial level. I know AJ comes up with some non-intuitive, but probably correct stuff. I might question the assumptions for the model, but I dont question the analysis. I value what he does for me and the great unwashed.
I plan to run my triangles on Saturday, so I should have some raw data on Sunday. I imagine somebody will whip out some probabilities. If not I will figure it out or find someone to do it.
I just bought 120 cups and the beer is chillin. Stay tuned.
I plan to run my triangles on Saturday, so I should have some raw data on Sunday. I imagine somebody will whip out some probabilities. If not I will figure it out or find someone to do it.
I just bought 120 cups and the beer is chillin. Stay tuned.
broadbill
Well-Known Member
I will say I'm confused about the 6 samples (A-F) instead of just three...how many different ones will be in there? Are you giving all 6 to everybody or are there two sets of tasting samples?
Also, my understanding of a triangle test is that all they could all be the same, or they could all be different. Your question set only works for one beer being different than the other two. Furthermore, you have indicated as much to the taster by the way the question is stated. This may or may not influence how they judge the beer.
Lastly, if you are going to use AJ's speadsheet you need to run the test identically to how he did his; otherwise his calculations may not work on your setup.
Sorry to throw all of these variables into the mix; I'm beginning to understand how complicated taste tests can be!
Broadbill my test has two sets of samples, abc and def and they are indeed odd man out. ABC is two xs and a y, and DEF is two ys and an x. I did it this way to keep from running out of x or y too soon.
It would be fun to have a test with identical samples, and my homebrew club is probably going to do that this year.
Im not going to worry about AJs spreadsheet. It would be good to know how many votes it takes to kill the null hypothesis. Ive never liked that critter.
It would be fun to have a test with identical samples, and my homebrew club is probably going to do that this year.
Im not going to worry about AJs spreadsheet. It would be good to know how many votes it takes to kill the null hypothesis. Ive never liked that critter.
Tall_Yotie
Well-Known Member
Currently working on my own test. I have a question in regards to your test method, apologies for not just posting results.
Have you (or anyone else in the experiment) did a beer that did not use any form of aeration? To see if standard transferring actually gives enough O2 to let the yeast do their thing. As adding oxygen is far harder in high gravity beers, that is where I play to do my real proving grounds (as basic transferring will no where near get the O2 levels required).
Have you (or anyone else in the experiment) did a beer that did not use any form of aeration? To see if standard transferring actually gives enough O2 to let the yeast do their thing. As adding oxygen is far harder in high gravity beers, that is where I play to do my real proving grounds (as basic transferring will no where near get the O2 levels required).
agenthucky
Well-Known Member
" Moreover, olive oil will not dissolve in wort and must first be dissolved in 100% ethanol. For any homebrewers reading this do not add a drop of olive oil to your beer. I had to weigh 1 gram of oil, dissolve it, and make a serial dilution until I had close to 0.1 ug/ml. Of this solution, I added 100 uls directly to the wort."
Has anyone else come across this? This is the first I've seen of this and no one else is talking about this. Where does this come from? The solubility of oil in water? This seems like an important part of testing this theory and I haven't seen it anywhere.
ross_daly
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2013
- Messages
- 143
- Reaction score
- 13
I've read the whole paper and didn't notice any mention of adding alcohol to the oil. I wonder if he was relying on first hand knowledge of oil and water mixing, or if he knows specifically how the oil would be used by the yeast.
I also would like to know more.
I kind of lost track of this thread but I think I described how a triangle test works earlier. It should be clear that this is not an AJ inventions. It is a standard testing technique and the procedure is spelled out in detail in the ASBC MOA's.
Apparently there are 2 sets of sample (6 beers total) presented. This is not a triangle test.
In a triangle test 2 beers, A and B are compared. The beers are presented in groups of three of which there are 6 possible combinations in which two samples are the same and the third different:
AAB, ABA, ABB, BBA, BAB, and BAA.
For each panelist a die is rolled and one of those six groupings is assigned to him according to which face comes up. Thus not only which beer is the odd one is randomized but also the order in which they are presented. Looking at #64: the expected value of the amount of A and B used in filling the cups is equal. If the volumes are not nearly equal the panel size is too small or you have been very unlucky. For example, if you have n panelists the total number of ways in which groups can be assigned is 6^n. The number of ways in which groupings in which A is the odd beer can be assigned is 3^n. Thus the probability that all n panelists get groups with A odd is (1/2)^n = 0.1% for 10 panelists, .02% for 12 etc. Possible but quite unlikely.
The panelist is asked to identify the odd beer and then answer some second question (e.g. ("Which is better?"). Obviously, if he can't tell them apart his opinion as to which is better is not worth much. That's what makes triangle testing so powerful. The odds of correctly guessing which is the different beer and of choosing it as better by coin flipping by an ensemble of panelists is very low. The spreadsheet calculates those probabilities and it duplicates the numbers found in the MOA so there is nothing magic about the spreadsheet.
Now supposed A and B are the same color or color is obscured but one is more highly carbonated than the other. Again, the panelist will easily be able to tell which is the odd beer with no consideration as to what you are after which is taste.
Apparently there are 2 sets of sample (6 beers total) presented. This is not a triangle test.
In a triangle test 2 beers, A and B are compared. The beers are presented in groups of three of which there are 6 possible combinations in which two samples are the same and the third different:
AAB, ABA, ABB, BBA, BAB, and BAA.
For each panelist a die is rolled and one of those six groupings is assigned to him according to which face comes up. Thus not only which beer is the odd one is randomized but also the order in which they are presented. Looking at #64: the expected value of the amount of A and B used in filling the cups is equal. If the volumes are not nearly equal the panel size is too small or you have been very unlucky. For example, if you have n panelists the total number of ways in which groups can be assigned is 6^n. The number of ways in which groupings in which A is the odd beer can be assigned is 3^n. Thus the probability that all n panelists get groups with A odd is (1/2)^n = 0.1% for 10 panelists, .02% for 12 etc. Possible but quite unlikely.
The panelist is asked to identify the odd beer and then answer some second question (e.g. ("Which is better?"). Obviously, if he can't tell them apart his opinion as to which is better is not worth much. That's what makes triangle testing so powerful. The odds of correctly guessing which is the different beer and of choosing it as better by coin flipping by an ensemble of panelists is very low. The spreadsheet calculates those probabilities and it duplicates the numbers found in the MOA so there is nothing magic about the spreadsheet.
You don't have to do things identically but you have follow all the details given in the MOA. If you present 4 beers or 6 beers or don't randomize the order of presentation or allow color differences to be perceived when A is a different color than B then it isn't a triangle test and the numbers in the ASBC Table and the numbers computed by my spreadsheet don't apply. Other schemes may have statistical power comparable to the triangle test but the triangle test numbers won't fit.
Yes, amen to that. You really have to think your experiment through. If you are interested in telling whether A tastes better or not than B while A is darker than B then you have to obscure the color as the panelist will be able to tell A from B by the color if he is able to see it. If, OTOH, you want to know if OO darkens beer noticeably then you would want the panelist to be able to see it.
Now supposed A and B are the same color or color is obscured but one is more highly carbonated than the other. Again, the panelist will easily be able to tell which is the odd beer with no consideration as to what you are after which is taste.
You can think of it this way. Imagine the olive oil is corn starch and the wort is hot soup. Maybe you've encountered this during cooking: if you plop a tablespoon of corn starch in the soup, you are going to get a ball of cornstarch floating in soup. If you break it up it will still be dry in the center. That's because the corn starch repels the water enough that it can't wet the inside.
Now, if you swirl the corn starch in cold water until it is suspended before adding it to the hot soup, the starch will dissolve into the soup and work as intended.
The olive oil works the same way. Added to water it remains a 'blob' like the corn starch, with most of the oil unavailable to the solution. Even if it breaks up into tiny bubbles, these are still huge compared to the yeast and the liquid between these bubbles contains zero molecules of oil. Since the olive oil is essentially being used as a vitamin to replace a product of yeast's aerobic metabolism, this is not ideal.
However, if you dissolve the oil in ethanol, it is like suspending the corn starch, only even more so. When dissolved, all molecules are separate and enter the wort separately. They spread throughout the wort and are much more available to the yeast. Over time they might reassemble, but it would take a very, very long time and hopefully the yeasties would chomp them up before then.
I looked up some studies using my academic access. Under fairly aerobic (i.e. healthy) conditions, it looks like Sac make close to 3.5mg/kg palmitoleic acid, dry cell weight. Palmitoleic acid would be the limiting constituent in just about any plant oil you could add, so we'll take it as a basis. I haven't dehydrated and weighed my yeast after a fermentation, but if someone were to do so it would be easy to find out the right amount of oil to add:
(weight of cake)* (3.5mg/kg) / (0.3-3.5% palmitoleic acid in olive oil)
or, since the numbers work out so nicely,
1-10mg/100g of anticipated dry yeast cake per batch
Taking a conservative guess at 100g of dry yeast cake for a 5 gallon batch, I get 10mg (or 0.011mL) of olive oil per 5 gallon batch (in line with other estimates), or appx 1.1mL of a 1% v/v olive oil solution in ethanol.
I don't know if its been mentioned earlier in the thread, but extra virgin olive oil is not the best choice. You want the thinnest, yellowest, most tasteless olive oil you can find to reduce phenolic content and ester generation. Macadamia oil might be a better choice because of its lower phenolic content (~48mg/kg vs 220mg/kg for the lightest olive oil)* and higher concentration of palmitoleic acid, which yeast need the most. What flavor is there is nutty rather than fruity or bitter, which should blend into the malt profile much nicer, although it would take a prince's nose to detect any flavor in 5 gallons: you'd be adding only 0.22mL of a 1% solution of macadamia oil in ethanol to match the above calculations.
Forgive me if any of this was explored earlier in the thread as I only heard of the idea today, and haven't yet read the whole thing.
Sources:
*Influence of Oxygen Addition during Growth Phase on the Biosynthesis of Lipids in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (M330-9) in Enological Fermentations, Valero et al.
*Antioxidant properties of phenolic compounds in macadamia nuts, Quinn & Tang
*http://www.agbiolab.com/files/agbiolab_Polyphenols.pdf
Previously i thought about adding olive oil during the boil.
But if i would make an olive oil/ethanol solution then i should wait until the wort chills below the ethanol's boiling point?
edit: is it possible to use stuff like vodka instead of ethanol?
But if i would make an olive oil/ethanol solution then i should wait until the wort chills below the ethanol's boiling point?
edit: is it possible to use stuff like vodka instead of ethanol?
Vodka is ethanol. Well ethanol and water mixed.
Yeah but i thought that the strenght/ABV should be ~100%.
So i dilute olive oil with vodka/whiskey etc. and add a miniscule amount to the wort before pitching? (when the wort is cool)
broadbill
Well-Known Member
Considering there really isn't any evidence that olive oil has an effect on the production of beer, why would you add it in the first place? Or are you also doing a comparison test?
Wow, you read my mind! I was about to post the same thing! My conversation with Grady Hull told me that homebrewers aren't trying to use OO the way it was intended, New Belgium didn't care for the results, and they no longer do it. Why bother?
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.
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.
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.
TyTanium
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,976
- Reaction score
- 613
People love chasing ever-elusive magic pills
broadbill
Well-Known Member
Uh ok....anyone ever tell you to be careful of the stuff you read on the internets?...
Why do you think your oxygenating practices are subpar? Do you have an actual problem with the beer you make?
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.
broadbill
Well-Known Member
This time you beat me to it!
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
broadbill
Well-Known Member
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.
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]
See the OO threads on here; its been done.
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.
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)?
This is from an old post I did in a very long thread.
I dont 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 isnt 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. Its my secret weapon.
I dont 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 isnt 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. Its 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
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 didnt do any more tests.
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 didnt do any more tests.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
I just poured 42 bottles of HB Dunkelweizen down the drain- Latest: BongoYodeler
-
-
-
-
-
