Using Olive oil instead of Oxygen

[broadbill]

By the way, a good buddy of mine uses nothing but the OO method and swears by it. A few of his beers have been pretty fantastic. Can't say all are great, but I also don't think the lesser brews were lesser because of the OO. More likely just a recipe issue.

You could also argue that his lesser brews were less fantastic because of the addition of OO. That possibility is equally likely if you are going to rely on anecdotal information.

 

[Haputanlas]

You could also argue that his lesser brews were less fantastic because of the addition of OO. That possibility is equally likely if you are going to rely on anecdotal information.

Absolutely. Split batches are the only way to go if you want to be sure.

 

[kosmokramer]

I used oo in a bastardized dfh120 clone attempt. I stepped up to huge starters and used one drop each time. I'm sure my readings were skewed because of the high alcohol content but out of a seven gallon batch separated into 4 and 3 gallons to ferment, I got them to 26% and 19% respectfully with no aeration at all

 

[Bsquared]

the white labs blog had a post about this in July, I emailed her my results from my Belgian ale experiment several years ago where I split the batch (12gallon) 7 ways, one 6 gallon carboy that got O2 and a starter made on the stir plate and 6 one gallon jugs, one got O2, one had no aeration and three got a drop of olive oil, all batches where pitched with 1^6 cells/ml/º Plato. I did not see a big difference between the six one gallons over all, but the OO batches all finished about a day quicker than all the other batches. One note was all the One gallon brews tasted the same but the 6gallon batch had a better ester profile. This was most likely due to fermenter geometry and not the addition of olive oil
View attachment Olive Oil experiment.xml

I think Neve from White labs makes a good point that OO used on fresh liquid yeast cultures might not be the best way to test this, where the benefit might not be as noticeable on healthy yeast from the lab, but would be more beneficial one later generations of yeast from the brewhouse.

I think what will be more interesting to see, and a new trial will be done, is how these methods affect later generations – second and third generation fermentations. I think we’ll see more variation. So for the next one, I’ll do several brews.

 

[luke2080]

Just read through the full thread. I recently found Hull's paper after the head brewer at Smuttynose recommended OO as a way for a homebrewer to aide the fact that it is tough to get more than 2-3 ppm of Oxygen with splashing/aeration. (and don't want to add to their eqiupment surplus with o2 tanks, aquarium aeration pumps, etc)

I'm not sure everyone posting read or really understood Hull's paper. The tiny amount of OO was added to yeast POST FERMENTATION, while in storage, as a prep for the NEXT batch. I don't want to read into the full details, so biology PHDs, feel free to correct me. But I believe it amounts to the yeast using O2 to process something or other, which ultimately strengthens the yeast. Rebuilding cell walls and making them strong for propagation (yeast sex/duplication). Aeration is a great way to do this, but long term has an impact on storage. Something commercial breweries care about. OO was used during yeast storage, 5 hours before use in this experiment, to allow the yeast to re-strengthen themselves. (Like Pop-eye eating his spinach to prepare for a fight, not after Bluto has already beaten him to a pulp)

The experiment showed that, comparing a beer aerateted to 9-10 ppm of oxygen vs OO, there was not a significant difference. There was a longer lag time and more esters created using OO. This leads you to believe the OO is not quite as good as aeration, but it also replaces negative long term beer storage impacts. And the ester/lag difference can be OK, even mitigated with more OO. It is too bad the experiments did not continue until the threshhold of "how much is too much" was found, to find the optimal amount. But - optimal amount would depend on the yeast type as the paper stated. Something that would really require lots of experimentation across yeast strains

(Side note - there are some comments that New Belgium stopped this practice due to their perceived impacts to longer term storage. Does anyone know this as fact? This would be a cool thing to get a comment on from NB. I assumed they stopped practice of this right after the experiment because using O2 is the old reliable method. Actually, probably only using OO for these tests and then back to their normal procdess. Did they measure storage past the 3-4 weeks that was discussed in the paper results, which showed OO held up better? Extrapolating those results would give the edge to OO. And remember - they did actually sell the OO version to paying customers after passign all in house tests)

What would be more interesting to a Homebrewer that doesn't have an aeration stone - what are the scientific results of this using the splash/shake method (which is somewhat understood to give 2-3ppm) versus using a drop of OO - at the right time.

Sounds like most people have been adding that drop to the fermentor. At that point, the yeast have been diluted throughout the full 5G of wort (not sure what impact that would have, putting in the drop of OO) and the yeast would have started to propegate right away anyway - eating the newly found sugars! They would be doing this with their puny, unhealthy cell walls. If this is how people were experimenting, they were not following the process and missing the point of the use of OO.

I've had trouble getting those last few points of attenuation. I was about to give into an aeration stone because I know I'm far short on needed oxygen. However, just started with the OO method.

For the last batch, made the starter as normal, after 36 ish hours it was put in the fridge to drop the yeast so I can pour off the wort. 5 hours before I knew I would pitch, with the yeast at room temp again, 1 tiny drop of OO was added to my starter flask. This was all pitched to the wort.

I wish I had read this thread first. My 10G batch was already split to 2 fermentors, but both used the same starter yeast. Next time I'll compare.

This would be a cool experiment for BYO to do. Get a bunch of people to send in batches. 1 using the splash/shake method. 1 using OO. Let them send these off to labs for actual ester/compound/whatever testing - and taste testing. Has there not been more testing on this? I'm just starting my Interwebs search for more information now. I'm surprised this thread was started 4-5 years ago and I don't see a lot of other good information on it. Maybe that does mean its truly a failed method. But haven't seen any proof for that.

Thats my 50 cents. Reading Hull's thesis made sense. Seems like people just adding OO to the fermentor though is not nearly following a process that would create any benefit to using the OO. Missing the point. I do wish the initial experiments were expanded upon, but if that was all that was required for the PHD paper I would have stopped to. Writing papers is annoying. Can't believe I rambled on this long in this post.

 

[luke2080]

the white labs blog had a post about this in July,
View attachment 86533

Dude - where were you before I started writing my stupidly long post!?

Link to the results of that WL study.

Results are a bit of a pain to read, since there was 2 batches (A & B) and they show the results as every other: A, B, A, B.

But based on that, no big impact. Which is a positive for OO. Although I'm surprised the 5ppm Oxygen held up so well. Would have been a better test to include 2ppm (like most homebrewers likely get)

 

[Haputanlas]

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?

 

[kpr121]

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?

What are you attempting to test? Whether the OO addition is the same as oxygenation or whether the OO gives you a better result than no oxygenation?

You have a lot of variables going on there. Seems like you need to pick one scenario out and make sure all the rest are equal between the two so that you can actually define a conclusion. You could do it a couple different ways:

1) CO2 blanket on both, no splashing or shaking either. Add OO to one, and nothing to other (control). Use stir plated starter
2) Same as 1 but don’t use a stirplate (possibly just try direct pitching a vial)
3) CO2 blanket on both, splash and shake one and do nothing but add OO to other. Use stir plated starter
4) Same as 3 but don’t use a stirplate (again, direct pitch possibly)

To me each of these experiments would tell a chapter but the whole story would not be told. On a conceptual level it feels like number 1 would be the first logical step to say whether the OO is better than nothing at all. But then I still think you have to go through the rest of the progression to tell whether it makes any difference.

Throw in additional variables such as O2 stones, repitching used yeast, dry yeast, and other factors such as long term storage effects and head retention and you could easily surpass your 200 gallon per year legal limit as a homebrewer!

 

[Haputanlas]

What are you attempting to test? Whether the OO addition is the same as oxygenation or whether the OO gives you a better result than no oxygenation?

You have a lot of variables going on there. Seems like you need to pick one scenario out and make sure all the rest are equal between the two so that you can actually define a conclusion. You could do it a couple different ways:

1) CO2 blanket on both, no splashing or shaking either. Add OO to one, and nothing to other (control). Use stir plated starter
2) Same as 1 but don’t use a stirplate (possibly just try direct pitching a vial)
3) CO2 blanket on both, splash and shake one and do nothing but add OO to other. Use stir plated starter
4) Same as 3 but don’t use a stirplate (again, direct pitch possibly)

To me each of these experiments would tell a chapter but the whole story would not be told. On a conceptual level it feels like number 1 would be the first logical step to say whether the OO is better than nothing at all. But then I still think you have to go through the rest of the progression to tell whether it makes any difference.

Throw in additional variables such as O2 stones, repitching used yeast, dry yeast, and other factors such as long term storage effects and head retention and you could easily surpass your 200 gallon per year legal limit as a homebrewer!

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?

 

[Denny]

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.

 

[Haputanlas]

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.

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.

 

[Denny]

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.

 

[kpr121]

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.

 

[kpr121]

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?

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.

 

[Haputanlas]

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.

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.

 

[aaronbeach]

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...

 

[Wynne-R]

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

- 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.

 

[Denny]

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

 

[Wynne-R]

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.

- 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.

 

[Denny]

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.

 

[Calder]

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.

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.

 

[seabass07]

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.

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.

 

[SC_Ryan]

ohaipikachu

 

[agenthucky]

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?

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

 

[agenthucky]

- 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.

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

 

[agenthucky]

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?

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.

 

[seabass07]

ohaipikachu

You sneaky sonofabitch!

 

[agenthucky]

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.

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.

 

[SC_Ryan]

You sneaky sonofabitch!

Hahaha. I see what you did there.

 

[seabass07]

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.

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?