# Olive Oil In Starter



## hazard (8/4/09)

I've been reading about olive oil aeration, on this this forum and I've read the thesis (a good read, needs to be read a couple of times for it all to sink in). I am keen to try this technique as the results achieved in the thesis are good.

So I am planning to make an irish red ale this weekend. I made a stout before Christmas, and made a 1.5L starter from a Wyeast 1084 smack pack. I used 1L in the stout, and kept 0.5L for later on. I got out the remaining starter on Sunday, decanted the wort on top of the yeast, and added some fresh malt. Not much was happening by last night so i thinks to myself - if olive oil works in a full fermentation, why wouldn't it work in a starter?

I made another 0.5L (50g DME) of malt, added it to starter and also added a drop of olive oil. gave it a gentle shake and put it in the cupboard. This morning - wow! The starter is fermenting well! Half an inch of foam on top, and a healthy bit of yeast on the bottom of the bottle. This is showing promising results.

I now aim to let the starter ferment out, will chill and decant before pitching and add a drop or two or oil as well. According to the thesis, they got best results from 1mg for 25 billion yeast cells (thats 4 mg for a smack pack BTW). I'm not sure how much 4mg of olive oil is, but I've got 2 days to work it out!! 

I know Chappo has tried oilive oil aeration, are there any other results to report?


----------



## Sammus (8/4/09)

That sounds like an awful lot. I've also read a bunch of olive oil for this purpose, and it seemed the general consensus was that in homebrew scales, even touching the head of a needle to some oil and washing it off in a full fermenter is several magnitudes more than what is required/recommended.


----------



## chappo1970 (8/4/09)

Good on ya Hazard,
Having read and done the olive oil I have got to say it works and works well. The LCBA I experimented on has turned out fantastic and any faults are from malt and hops not from yeast IMO. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the head retention in fact last nights bottle was lacing the glass beautifully. 

I did 2 starters this weekend for my Aussie lager both fired off from Olive Oil with an addition of 1mls. Both took off incrediably well. I had planned to do one as normal and the other with olive oil. But I just couldn't help myself so I dosed both. 

I aerated the wort with oxygen approximately 15ppm so I didn't go the whole 9 yards but I have to say it works and warrants more experimentation and testing. I am doing an Irish Red as well this weekend and I am going to try Olive Oil on both the starter and the wort no oxygenation.

Hazard PM me your address and I am happy to send you said results for your own critique and bias of the said results.


----------



## hazard (8/4/09)

Sammus said:


> That sounds like an awful lot. I've also read a bunch of olive oil for this purpose, and it seemed the general consensus was that in homebrew scales, even touching the head of a needle to some oil and washing it off in a full fermenter is several magnitudes more than what is required/recommended.


Sammus, yes, i have also read some of the posts that recommend vanishingly small amounts of oil. However, while i listen to these people, I will only accept quantitative facts - and I refer again to the Hull thesis:
Quote" In the 360 HL batch the olive oil was added to the yeast at a rate of 1 mg/ 67 billion yeast cells pitched (15 mg olive oil per litre of yeast)" unquote.
Now I saw a comment from a reader who divided 360 hL by 15 mg to determine the volume of yeast but this calculation is not right, and would serioulsy underquote the requirement. Another quote from Hull thesis follows:
"In the 2,100hL trials the concentration was increased again to 1mg per 25 billion cells" Unquote
Now a smack pack is 100 billion cells - so this equates to 4 mg for a smack pack. If you put smack pack on a stir plate and double the number of cells - then you would need 8 mg!!

Note that in the last trial (1 mg oil per 25 billion cells) ester production was increased AND DMS/acetaldehyde/ higher alcohols were decreased AND oxidation was significantly decreased. So a win for the oil!!

I have read the thesis a few times, and am keen to try this approach. If this amount seems to large, I am happy to discuss but what is the quantitative evidence to support another figure? No anecdotes!!

hazard


----------



## haysie (8/4/09)

hazard said:


> Note that in the last trial (1 mg oil per 25 billion cells) ester production was increased AND DMS/acetaldehyde/ higher alcohols were decreased AND oxidation was significantly decreased. So a win for the oil!!
> 
> 
> hazard



Thats a hell of a lot of great stuff the olive oil does. What`s your experience using olive oil in beer? that stuff appears to be text written 360hl eg. not worth our while i would suggest. Oxidation, acetaldehyde, fusels, esters ARE NOT going to be significantly decreased by olive oil in a 50 ltr batch. I guess the proof would be double batch i.e 1 lager full of butterscotch, the other only, no.


----------



## chappo1970 (8/4/09)

Did you bother reading the thesis Haysie before shooting from the hip?


----------



## haysie (8/4/09)

Chappo said:


> Did you bother reading the thesis Haysie before shooting from the hip?



Yes i have read it, if you really need oil too make good starters, beer, you must be far off producing a decent swill. The claim was fixes this and that.... bollucks. more copywriting than experience.


----------



## Sammus (8/4/09)

Sounds good hazard, haven't read the thesis myself, it certainly does sound like people have misinterpreted what it said. Something I definitely want to give a crack.


----------



## chappo1970 (8/4/09)

Yes it is very obvious to me that you have *read and understood* the paper Haysie with comments like that.


----------



## chappo1970 (8/4/09)

Said Olive oil beer. Not the best photo but the head retention is great and no noticable taste defects. I'm happy with it.


----------



## hazard (8/4/09)

haysie said:


> Yes i have read it, if you really need oil too make good starters, beer, you must be far off producing a decent swill. The claim was fixes this and that.... bollucks. more copywriting than experience.


ummm - are you sure you read it? The thesis did not claim to make a bad beer good. The aim of the experiment was simply to see if beer could be brewed without aeration, as aeration longer term leads to oxidation of the beer (i always wondered why beer has a use by date on the bottle. Now I know why).

The conclusion was that by using olive oil, it was possible to brew beer without oxidation and without drop off in quality. Quantitative measures showed a few other things about esters and DMS, but also stated that changes were in normal tolerance levels. You don't have to believe it, I don't believe it blindly but am prepared to give it ago. What is problem with trying something new?

hazard


----------



## chappo1970 (8/4/09)

Well I am going to forge ahead with this. I will be taking more detailed notes and more accurate measurements as well as photo's. I will use this thread to post my results. Cheers Hazard for starting this thread.


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (8/4/09)

Chappo said:


> Well I am going to forge ahead with this. I will be taking more detailed notes and more accurate measurements as well as photo's. I will use this thread to post my results. Cheers Hazard for starting this thread.


Be very careful doing your measurements and recorded results, You probably don't have the gear to generate an accurate objective result.Im not saying OO doesnt have merit I just dont think you can do it justice.
GB


----------



## chappo1970 (8/4/09)

Agree whole heartedly GB 

I'm working on geting some more accurate equipment from a research lab I'm currently renovating but actually quantify results in a home environment is not ideal to say the least.


----------



## Whistlingjack (8/4/09)

What's the point, again?

Why not just stick to tried and proven traditional methods of aeration. 

Sure, experimentation is a good thing, but in our world of homebrewing, there are so many other variables to take in to account when attempting to replicate the method.

Good luck...

WJ


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (8/4/09)

Chappo said:


> Agree whole heartedly GB
> 
> I'm working on geting some more accurate equipment from a research lab I'm currently renovating but actually quantify results in a home environment is not idea to say the least.


Good to see you giving it a go.I was very interested when originally I heard about this Oil stuff but could not find any real objective data,one seemed to contradict the other, as science quite often does.
GB


----------



## Sammus (8/4/09)

a drop of oil into the fermenter is much easier than shaking 25L+ of liquid, which doesnt give anywhere near the recommended amount of aeration, or dissolved oxygen. And olive oil is also a lot cheaper than an O2 cylinder and oxygenation system. And then theres the storage issues hazard has mentioned.


----------



## big d (8/4/09)

Olive oil hey?
Different slant on the ol neck oil jibe.
Look forward to the results.

Cheers
Big D


----------



## chappo1970 (8/4/09)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> Good to see you giving it a go.I was very interested when originally I heard about this Oil stuff but could not find any real objective data,one seemed to contradict the other, as science quite often does.
> GB



Or brewing for that matter.  Cheers for the encouragement GB.

Is't home brewing about tinkering? I'm not a commercial brewer I brew for myself so if I stuff a few brews what harm have I done except to myself? I'm not asking you to join in but rather just posting my findings it's up to you if you find merit to give it a go yourself. Quite simply if this exercise fails I will no doubt fold back to the tried and tested but as yet nothing so far has persuaded or deterred me from using Olive Oil as an alternative to traditional spanking your wort like a british nanny.


----------



## Whistlingjack (8/4/09)

Sammus said:


> a drop of oil into the fermenter is much easier than shaking 25L+ of liquid, which doesnt give anywhere near the recommended amount of aeration, or dissolved oxygen. And olive oil is also a lot cheaper than an O2 cylinder and oxygenation system. And then theres the storage issues hazard has mentioned.



A fish tank aerator with a viral filter seems pretty basic equipment. Room air has sufficient oxygen content. Also, a venturi system (again with the filter) is quite easy to construct.

No need to use pure oxygen, studies have shown this has no advantage.

Oil up, if you wish, but be sure you have done the mathematics.

WJ


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (8/4/09)

Whistlingjack said:


> What's the point, again?
> 
> Why not just stick to tried and proven traditional methods of aeration.



Proponents of oil are also claiming increased shelf life for beers. I'll be giving it a go for sure.


----------



## hazard (12/4/09)

I brewed up an irish red ale yesterday (Saturday), pitched with oily yeast and no aeration, and going gang busters today!! Here are details.

My irish ale is a partial recipe with 3kg grain and 1 kg of light DME (will post on recipe DB). I finished with 24 litre of wort at 1050. After the boil was finished and wort cooled down, I carefuilly racked to to the fermentor to avoid splashing as much as possible. 

I have been growing the starter this week as described earlier in this thread. I put the starter in the fridge on Friday night. Took it out of fridge on Sat morning, decanted top liquid and added 2 drops of oil. After warming up to room temp, the yeast was pitched at lunchtime Saturday.

First bubble popped through the airlock at 5pm Saturday afternoon, and by midnight was bubbling merrily. This morning, its bubbling 1 per second (or so).

So - at this stage, olive oil aeration is working well. I've got a strong fermentation going, and it started quicker than some of my brews which I did aerate. The ultimate test will of course be in the tasting of the final product and I will provide an update at some time. But for me - I have read about a lot of different ways to aerate wort, and this is surely the easiest way by far. And if it does increase shelf life through reduced oxidation then even better!

Hazard


----------



## Sammus (12/4/09)

Whistlingjack said:


> A fish tank aerator with a viral filter seems pretty basic equipment. Room air has sufficient oxygen content. Also, a venturi system (again with the filter) is quite easy to construct.
> 
> No need to use pure oxygen, studies have shown this has no advantage.
> 
> ...




Really? Which studies show that? Because the guys at Wyeast labs did a presentation (you can get a copy of it here) in which they showed the methods and results of a lot of oxygenation techniques. They even clearly state that an aquarium pump through an air stone gives nowhere near sufficient oxygen levels (tops out at 8ppm, where as for most beers you probably want closer to 4x that).

I'd like to read the studies you're referring to, do you have a link or journal name/number/page?


----------



## MHB (12/4/09)

For those that like to read - The Hull ThesisView attachment 26165


The idea of avoiding wort aeration has been getting played with for well over a decade. There are a couple of fundamental points that you have to be aware of: -

This is not a *Yeast Propagation Method*; it has to do with the health of the membrane in the cell walls of stored yeast. The assumption being that the pitch is of sufficient size not to require further yeast reproduction in the wort. From this it follows that this is not a method you would employ to build up a starter
As the study clearly indicates in the "Suggestions for Future Work" Olive Oil only supplies oleic acid, a vital part of the process; however far from a complete answer to yeast growth and health.

Personally I have no objections to the process and am looking forward to future results of the research, ultimately it could lead to some very smart yeast propagation and storage methods, but at this time it's far from a complete answer.



MHB

If you want to measure out small quantities of oil, I took a small dropping pipette and counted out 10 drops 3 times the average weight of water was 0.27g or 270 mg so 1 drop was about 27mg (of water) Olive Oil has a density of about 0.9.

So Hazard, you are looking for about 1/3 of a drop in your built up starter.
M


----------



## hazard (9/5/09)

hazard said:


> I brewed up an irish red ale yesterday (Saturday), pitched with oily yeast and no aeration, and going gang busters today!! Here are details.


I have now bottled the "olive oil" beer. FG got down to 1013, as planned, after 2 weeks and I chilled for another week before bottling last weekend. So, oil (or to be more precise lack of aeration) did not hinder fermentation at all. Will leave in the bottle for another week or 2 before I try it.

hazard


----------



## muckanic (12/5/09)

Sammus said:


> Because the guys at Wyeast labs did a presentation (you can get a copy of it here) in which they showed the methods and results of a lot of oxygenation techniques. They even clearly state that an aquarium pump through an air stone gives nowhere near sufficient oxygen levels (tops out at 8ppm, where as for most beers you probably want closer to 4x that).



The context of this idea seems to get lost in the repetition. Sure, a one-off application of an air pump can't saturate a brew adequately with O2. However, who said the pump has to be turned off once the dissolved O2 levels plateau? Plus, it is debatable whether a fancy viral filter is necessary. I believe that solo yeast cells don't really float around in practice. A dust and possibly spore filter could be enough.

Thinking laterally, why not just use a pump on the starter rather than the main batch? It is presumably no less effective than a stirplate.


----------



## Sammus (12/5/09)

muckanic said:


> Thinking laterally, why not just use a pump on the starter rather than the main batch? It is presumably no less effective than a stirplate.



Interesting point, though I know for sure that my air stone provides nowhere near enough agitation to keep the yeast in suspension - which I believe is one of the main points of a stirrer, along with driving out excess co2 and constant airation (im not convinced on the last point, I think the air above the liquid, especially in a erlynmeyer flask, would be saturated with co2...

I think ideally you'd have an airstone and a stirrer.


----------



## chappo1970 (18/5/09)

Sammus said:


> Interesting point, though I know for sure that my air stone provides nowhere near enough agitation to keep the yeast in suspension - which I believe is one of the main points of a stirrer, along with driving out excess co2 and constant airation (im not convinced on the last point, I think the air above the liquid, especially in a erlynmeyer flask, would be saturated with co2...
> 
> I think ideally you'd have an airstone and a stirrer.



Interesting point Sammus. 

No stirrer yet (tight one in the pipeline ATM) but I have an airstone .5 micron with pure O2 canister to aerate wort and starters. It would appear that under oxygenation of your wort is much more critical than over oxygenation. Also the only method that achieves the 10pmm O2 level saturation required for healthy yeast growth is an airstone with O2 for 60 seconds. I have been doing mine for 30 seconds as instructed on another thread. So I have been under oxygenating my wort if that's the case? O2 saturation of wort is dependant on OG and temperature. Looks like the colder the wort in the more saturation you get (I gather like CO2 absorbion when Kegging). 

But if this is the case I have pitched yeast at a wort only innoculated with 2ml of olive oil. No aeration at all. By all accounts that brew should have done numerous things like not fired, slow fermentation, off flavours, poor ester production etc, etc. I found none of these in that brew. In fact it my case swap Irish Red. I have been getting great comments from those that have tried it (very experienced to the novice brewer) and in fact it has been my favourite brew to date. 

So what happened? Why did it turn out so well? I really went against the norm with this one and it turned in spite of all saying it wouldn't, Why?

Referring to my brew notes the yeast was a smack pack 1084 Irish. It fermented out in under 9 days @ 18C. SG1054 to FG1010.

Been doing a little more digging today and found this little snippet on the Wyeast site:




*Oxygenation*
Oxygen is a critical additive in brewing. Oxygen is the only necessary nutrient not naturally found in wort. Adding adequate oxygen to wort requires a fundamental understanding of why yeast need oxygen, how much oxygen they need, and how to get oxygen into solution and the factors affecting solubility of oxygen. 


*Why Yeast Need Oxygen* Yeast use oxygen for cell membrane synthesis. Without oxygen, cell growth will be extremely limited. Yeast can only produce sterols and certain unsaturated fatty acids necessary for cell growth in the presence of oxygen. Inadequate oxygenation will lead to inadequate yeast growth. Inadequate yeast growth can cause poor attenuation, inconsistent or long fermentations, production of undesirable flavor and aroma compounds, and produces yeast that are not fit for harvesting and re-pitching. 

*How Much Oxygen?

* Oxygen requirement is variable depending on: yeast strain employed, original gravity of wort, and wort trub levels. Some yeast strains have higher oxygen requirements than others. It is generally safe to assume that you need at least 10ppm of oxygen. 10ppm will supply adequate oxygen in most situations. Over-oxygenation is generally not a concern as the yeast will use all available oxygen within 3 to 9 hours of pitching and oxygen will come out of solution during that time as well. Under-oxygenation is a much bigger concern. High original gravity (>1.065) wort, in addition to increasing osmotic stress on yeast, can cause problems with achieving adequate levels of dissolved oxygen. As the gravity of wort increases, solubility of oxygen decreases. Increased temperatures also decrease the solubility of wort. The unsaturated fatty acids found in wort trub can be utilized by yeast for membrane synthesis. If wort trub levels are low, yeast will need to synthesize more of these lipids and therefore will require more oxygen. 

*Methods of Aeration / Oxygenation* Homebrewers have several aeration/oxygenation methods available to them: siphon sprays, whipping, splashing, shaking, pumping air through a stone with an aquarium pump, and injecting pure oxygen through a scintered stone. We have tested all of these methods using a dissolved oxygen meter and have found that, when using air, 8 ppm of oxygen in solution is the best that you can achieve. Injecting oxygen through a stone will allow much higher dissolved oxygen levels. The chart below shows methods tested and the results. 

*Method**DO ppm**Time*Siphon Spray4 ppm0 sec.Splashing & Shaking8 ppm40 sec.Aquarium Pump w/ stone8 ppm5 minPure Oxygen w/ stone0-26ppm60 sec (12ppm)

It was concluded that pumping compressed air through a stone is not an efficient way to provide adequate levels of DO. Traditional splashing and shaking, although laborious, is fairly efficient at dissolving up to 8 ppm oxygen. To increase levels of oxygen, the carboy headspace can be purged with pure oxygen prior to shaking. The easiest and most effective method remains injecting pure oxygen through a scintered stone.


Anyways I must continue but I would like to debate this further with more of the brewing brains trust as to this method of aeration.

Cheers


Chappo


----------



## muckanic (18/5/09)

As Wyeast kind of acknowledge, it may well be possible to achieve 26 ppm using O2 injection, but a practical issue is what happens next, ie, how long does that concentration remain in the brew? When they say that yeast needs 10 ppm, it is not clear whether they mean a constant 10 ppm during the growth phase or a single shot of 10 ppm at the start of the growth phase.


----------



## chappo1970 (18/5/09)

Exactly Muckanic, they go on to qualify "Over-oxygenation is generally not a concern as the yeast will use all available oxygen within 3 to 9 hours of pitching and oxygen will come out of solution during that time as well". So I take that meaning the yeasts only need oxygen present for between 3 to 9 hours at say 10ppm. So over oxygenation is good but what does "yeast will use all available oxygen" mean? How long does oxygen remain in suspension in a wort solution?

Also does that mean say if you had a fish tank aerator with an airstone that you could say run it for the first 6 hours of primary fermentation?

Chappo


----------



## mika (18/5/09)

This debate has been big on the american sites and the Brewing Network actually spoke to some Belgian brewers who were experimenting with it on a larger scale (by larger, we're still not up to the size of most Australian microbrewers if IIRC).
The results showed merit, but they went to lengths to say that it is not a direct replacement for, or even as good as dissolved oxygen. My understanding from the discussions is that it's possibly better than no aeration, otherwise it really only applies to packaging breweries or people wanting to keep beer in bottles in good condition.

Chappo - One brew does not an experiment make. Try a few and then plot the curve to the data, not the data to the curve.


----------



## Nick JD (18/5/09)

So, if the wort has zero dissolved oxygen but you pitch the motherlode of yeast, fermentation will be fine? 

Or if you add a teeny bit of olive oil and under pitch (again, zero dissolved oxygen) you'll get good fermentation? 

Olive oil sounds great way with no chill...


----------



## mika (18/5/09)

Nick JD said:


> So, if the wort has zero dissolved oxygen but you pitch the motherlode of yeast, fermentation will be fine?



Kinda, not really. Some yeast growth for ester production isn't a bad thing, but theoretically, yes.



Nick JD said:


> Or if you add a teeny bit of olive oil and under pitch (again, zero dissolved oxygen) you'll get good fermentation?



You'll get OK fermentation, or at least that's where the debate begins.


----------



## MartinS (19/5/09)

Something I don't understand here is the difference between what the research says, and what you guys are doing. You guys are adding a couple of millilitres of oil, right? Doesn't the research say we should be adding single-digit milligrams for our quantities?

I'm sure I'm missing something here, but it seems to me people are adding about a thousand times the recommended dose.


----------



## Bribie G (19/5/09)

I used the olive oil method in my latest brew, about a ml, and it's gone off like a rocket on US-05 without the normal splashing and paddling I do (I'm a no chiller and normally would give the wort a good splash and thrash when transferring from cube to fermenter before pitching)


----------



## chappo1970 (19/5/09)

mika said:


> ...Chappo - One brew does not an experiment make. Try a few and then plot the curve to the data, not the data to the curve.



Totally agree mika and there is one thing for sure I don't profess to be a scientist or a researcher. Plus in my brewery environment there would be no way of accurately quantifying any of my results. I do however have a very keen interest in this method and am willing to keep going on a trial and error basis. It would be great if one or two of our more technically advanced minded brewers could maybe pick up the gauntlet but I guess that would near impossible.



MartinS said:


> Something I don't understand here is the difference between what the research says, and what you guys are doing. You guys are adding a couple of millilitres of oil, right? Doesn't the research say we should be adding single-digit milligrams for our quantities?
> 
> I'm sure I'm missing something here, but it seems to me people are adding about a thousand times the recommended dose.



No you are right and wrong. If you look at the original thesis, they state that they did several tests, ranging from 1 ml of oil per 67 Billion yeast cells to 1 ml of oil per 25 billion yeast cells. A smack pack is 100 billion yeast cells, so this implies about 1.5 to 4 ml of oil would be added for one smack pack. I think packs of dry yeast are a similar size, so this is still OK. Therefore it appears to be spot on with 3 ml or less. They also added oil to starter 5 hours before pitching. (snip from Hazzard post on another thread)

Cheers

Chappo


----------



## brettprevans (19/5/09)

ahh now lets really throw an interesting question into the debate...... will the olive oil work in something like a mead where constant oxygenation is a must. that would be some interesting testing


----------



## chappo1970 (19/5/09)

citymorgue2 said:


> ahh now lets really throw an interesting question into the debate...... will the olive oil work in something like a mead where constant oxygenation is a must. that would be some interesting testing



Wow? I think my rather small brain just slipped a cog on that one CM2. :huh: 

Hmmm????? :blink: 

Chappo


----------



## alowen474 (19/5/09)

BribieG said:


> I used the olive oil method in my latest brew, about a ml, and it's gone off like a rocket on US-05 without the normal splashing and paddling I do (I'm a no chiller and normally would give the wort a good splash and thrash when transferring from cube to fermenter before pitching)


If the yeast is dried, is it not conditioned to do its job without aeration?


----------



## Supra-Jim (19/5/09)

Chappo,

Would not be possible to get a reasonable approximation (with an acceptable degree of error for the home brewer) by using a stir plate, air stone + cylinder, olive oil, same strain of yeast and same starter.

Your two variables would be 02 or olive oil and with the starter, you could get a reasonable approximation of the growth of the yeast (i.e without trub from a full fermentation). These could even be fermented side by side in a double batch split between two fermenters.

I think given (as you stated) the 'wiggle room' in our equipment etc, an experiement like this should be able to produce a resonably acceptable result. Evidence could be seen in the yeast grown in the starter and that could also be compared against the fermentation results (OG vs FG etc).

Food for though?

Cheers SJ


----------



## Supra-Jim (19/5/09)

citymorgue2 said:


> ahh now lets really throw an interesting question into the debate...... will the olive oil work in something like a mead where constant oxygenation is a must. that would be some interesting testing



Is constant oxgenation a must for mead or is regular addition of nutrients necessary? 

I thought it was the later, especially if as mentioned above that yeast in beer wort consume the necessary oxygen in 6-9 hours.

CHeers SJ


----------



## hazard (19/5/09)

Chappo said:


> No you are right and wrong. If you look at the original thesis, they state that they did several tests, ranging from 1 ml of oil per 67 Billion yeast cells to 1 ml of oil per 25 billion yeast cells. A smack pack is 100 billion yeast cells, so this implies about 1.5 to 4 ml of oil would be added for one smack pack. I think packs of dry yeast are a similar size, so this is still OK. Therefore it appears to be spot on with 3 ml or less. They also added oil to starter 5 hours before pitching. (snip from Hazzard post on another thread)
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Chappo


Errrrrr - I might confess to an embarrasing error her. I've re-read the thesis and it actually states 1mg per 67 million yeast cells, NOT 1ml. One millilitre of oil is a bit less than 1 gram, ie 1,000 milligrams - so if quantities are measured in milligrams, then they are very much bigger than what was used by Hull. That doesn't mean that doseage used by Chappo is bad, as results to date are reported to be positive.

In Hull's work, results improved as the doseage got bigger, but he did stop at 1 ml (not mg!!) per 25 million cells. So what might happen if dose of oil is bigger? My guess is that yeast will metabolise oil up to a point, and once yeast are fully satisfied, any excess oil will simply float around in the fermenter. But I am an engineer, not a biologist, so don't trust me. I don't know how much oil yeast will use, but I guess that even if they used nothing, 3 ml of oil in 23 litres of wort is not going to do any damage. 

So if true dose is 3 mg, not 3 ml - how on earth do you measure 3 mg?

FROM THE THESIS:

"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."​


----------



## chappo1970 (19/5/09)

beerforal said:


> If the yeast is dried, is it not conditioned to do its job without aeration?



You are 100% correct both Fermentis and Safyeast state on their respective websites that on first pitch aeration is not really required but good practice.

As an aside I have emailed both companies asking about Olive Oil and if they have done any study on the subject. I will be interesting to see if I get a reply?



Supra-Jim said:


> Chappo,
> 
> Would not be possible to get a reasonable approximation (with an acceptable degree of error for the home brewer) by using a stir plate, air stone + cylinder, olive oil, same strain of yeast and same starter.
> 
> ...



I guess it is possible. Here's my initial thoughts say I crack one 11gr sachet of Safale s05. Split it 3 ways evenly say 3gr a pop. If I was to do 3 starters and ferment them over say a 36 hour period that way it would run over a weekend and I could keep cloer attention to the experiment.
The 3 experiments would be say: 

O2 only
Olive Oil only.
No aeration
Wort comes from the one batch so it could be considered as a controlled source with the same OG and fermentables available to the yeast. Ferment all 3 in my fermentation fridge so the climate for all three would be the same.

Does anyone know if I measured the 3 before and after, taking care to measure all liquid additions carefully and accurately, for weight would I be able to ascertain actual biomass from that and would that be an indication of a result or a complete waste of time?

I appreciate that this is Ametuer hour X 1000 but I willing to listen to anyone willing to chime in on how to do this better and or more accurately.

Cheers

Chappo


----------



## Supra-Jim (19/5/09)

I don't know if weighing the samples will work, as they say 'you don't get nothing for nothing'. The increase in yeast cell mass should be proportional to the reduction in sugar/fermentable reduction in the sample, should it not??

A less accurate method could be to ferment out the starters and then chill them. Taking note of the depth of the yeast at the bottom of the flask. This could give you a volume of yeast grown.

BTW, if you use the stirplate you mentioned you have planned (I have one under construction at the moment), you should bew able to grow a good sized starter in 24 hours. Although you are starting with 3gms each sample so yeah try 36.

Then ferment the three batches side by side and see which one wins!! 

Cheers SJ


----------



## mika (19/5/09)

Chappo said:


> Does anyone know if I measured the 3 before and after, taking care to measure all liquid additions carefully and accurately, for weight would I be able to ascertain actual biomass from that and would that be an indication of a result or a complete waste of time?



Not without breaking the laws of Physics. If you could somehow drain off only the liquid and keep all the yeast, then somehow dry it and measure it's mass, you might get close. But a lot of variables within it.

Edit: Beaten to it...


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (19/5/09)

hazard said:


> Errrrrr - I might confess to an embarrasing error her. I've re-read the thesis and it actually states 1mg per 67 million yeast cells, NOT 1ml. One millilitre of oil is a bit less than 1 gram, ie 1,000 milligrams - so if quantities are measured in milligrams, then they are very much bigger than what was used by Hull. That doesn't mean that doseage used by Chappo is bad, as results to date are reported to be positive.
> 
> In Hull's work, results improved as the doseage got bigger, but he did stop at 1 ml (not mg!!) per 25 million cells. So what might happen if dose of oil is bigger? My guess is that yeast will metabolise oil up to a point, and once yeast are fully satisfied, any excess oil will simply float around in the fermenter. But I am an engineer, not a biologist, so don't trust me. I don't know how much oil yeast will use, but I guess that even if they used nothing, 3 ml of oil in 23 litres of wort is not going to do any damage.
> 
> ...



Glad this has been cleared up. I've been scratching my head while following this thread trying to work out precisely how people came up with the 3ml figure. Thought I had it nailed in the other thread (below), but I've often been known to be out by several orders of magnitude in my calculations!  



JonnyAnchovy said:


> I think this was one of the orignal articles outlining the process. in the experiemnt they do a 360 HL batch with 15ML of Olive oil, if i'm not mistaken that'd mean around 0.01ml for a regular 22L batch.
> 
> Someone please correct my math!




I'd be reluctant to overuse oil, particularly in largers, because most of the accounts report higher ester production when using olive oil.


----------



## technocat (19/5/09)

If you use water as a medium of mass 1ml = 1000mg You would have to determine the mass of olive oil to arrive at the true answer. All academic really not much in it unless you were brewing in a big way. I am just a retired Electronics Tech so not that much in to it from a biological point of view.


Cheers


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (19/5/09)

Why doesn't someone get their act together and genetically engineer the ultimate yeast that never needs aeration, always attenuates to the perfect level, flocculates into a solid repitchable brick at the end of fermentation (leaving behing crystal-bright beer), seeks and destroys all foreign bacteria/spores, and generates the exact same flavor profile at any temperature? 

Why are we wasting our time making disease resistant plants and high yield crops when we could be working on something much more urgent like this??


----------



## chappo1970 (19/5/09)

Ok what about these two ideas then?

Kill the yeasties with say 10mls of chlorine solution causing them to drop from the solution. Draw off as much liquid as possible and weigh the results? A centrefuge would no doubt help. Hmm what can I jerryrig?
Give them 24 hours and then measure the amount of sugar that they have eaten?
Cheers

Chappo


----------



## Supra-Jim (19/5/09)

IF you kill them, then you can't add them to a wort and give them a field test with a full fermentation? yes?

I see this experiment in two parts. One, see how much yeast can be grown in a given starter in a given time (with variables mentioned by Chappo earlier).

Then two, ferment a full batch and measure results.

Cheers SJ


----------



## chappo1970 (19/5/09)

Supra-Jim said:


> IF you kill them, then you can't add them to a wort and give them a field test with a full fermentation? yes?
> 
> I see this experiment in two parts. One, see how much yeast can be grown in a given starter in a given time (with variables mentioned by Chappo earlier).
> 
> ...



Agreed but I thought I might take down one debate at a time. So by doing a starter only test and then move on to a fermentation test later on.

Really I am only going to waste say 3lts of wort and 1 sachet of yeast to do this initially but I should really do it at least 3 times to see whether the results are repeatable and represent the overall trend of outcome, No?

Cheers

Chappo


----------



## Supra-Jim (19/5/09)

Yes, it would be good to repeat the process (3 times is good). That way you more evidence to back your claims/results.

Cheers SJ


----------



## Leigh (19/5/09)

Not having read the thesis (I will with time), but is the term "olive oil aeration" used at all, or is it "olive oil to replace aeration"?

Also, does the author provide dissolved oxygen concentrations in the wort as a function of time with a comparison of the olive oil method and another aeration method?

Were the different "batch" sizes performed in the same vessel? Was the surface area the same?

Being a scientist, I suspect (and will stick my head on the block having not read or skimmed the thesis) that the olive oil does not act as a nutrient as implied above (far too small a concentration), but rather acts as a surfactant, reducing the surface tension of the wort and therefore allowing more oxygen to be absorbed through the surface...this could theoretically allow the yeast access to more oxygen over a longer period (easily proven by measuring DO as a function of time with back-to-back treatments that are otherwise identical), accomodating the yeasts requirement for oxygen (which can not miraculously be replaced by anything with another name).

Given my hypothesis, I would suggest that at some point, the olive oil would stop acting as a surfactant (probably at concentrations where it is no longer miscible in water) and form a seperate layer, potentially slowing the absorption of oxygen.

Now for those who have read the thesis to shoot me down in flames LOL


----------



## brettprevans (19/5/09)

very interesting leigh. why dont you make up some controlled trials and bring them to the caseswap for testing by the expert panel.

seriously, it is interesting.


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (19/5/09)

Leigh said:


> Not having read the thesis (I will with time), but is the term "olive oil aeration" used at all, or is it "olive oil to replace aeration"?
> 
> Also, does the author provide dissolved oxygen concentrations in the wort as a function of time with a comparison of the olive oil method and another aeration method?
> 
> ...



interesting idea, but I think the olive oil works through a different mechanism. From the thesis:

"The reason the yeast needs oxygen for a proper fermentation is because it needs to synthesize sterols and unsaturated fatty acids (UFAs) for its cell walls ... One interesting alternative to aerating the wort is to add the UFAs directly to the yeast during storage. Theoretically the yeast should be able to take up the UFAs and use them in a subsequent fermentation without the use of oxygen. This should result in a beer that has better resistance to staling oxidation without adversely effecting fermentation performance or flavor." (pp. 8).


----------



## technocat (19/5/09)

I have glanced through Hulls thesis and find the topic interesting and intend to give it a read in depth time permitting. The thesis does mention the problem that we all try to avoid and that is of oxygenation or staling of wort through aeration of wort during the brewing process particularly at high temperatures. However it is understood that this is not such a problem at fermenting temps and aeration prior to pitching yeast is advisable for healthy yeast viability. The subject of aeration in the brewing system has been covered here through other topics such as cavitation in ball valves, leaky unions, tubing, and any other place air can ingress. We accept the fact that oxygenation is a fact of life for good fermentation but I for one keep it to a minimum when pitching yeast. Do others who are critical of their brew experience staling as usually an after taste in otherwise a good beer. Occasionally I experience the wet cardboard taste very faintly as an after taste although not perceived in the first taste or aroma and this IMHO detracts from an otherwise excellent brew. The Olive oil theory is an attractive one as the way I see it it keeps roughing up the wort to a bare minimum. Any comments.
Brian


----------



## sah (19/5/09)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> Be very careful doing your measurements and recorded results, You probably don't have the gear to generate an accurate objective result.Im not saying OO doesnt have merit I just dont think you can do it justice.
> GB



We've all got the gear to measure results that are relevant to us small batch brewers.

The benefit appears to be long term storage.

If someone is keen to experiment, split a batch, aerate half, olive oil the other half, pitch the same amount/type/health of yeast. Bottle and conduct blind side by side (even triangular) testing at intervals say 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months.

regards,
Scott


----------



## muckanic (19/5/09)

The benefits of not oxygenating could be difficult to detect in naturally conditioned beer. That oxygen has to get in and have an effect before it is consumed by the yeast (ie, we are not talking post-ferment aeration here), and the staling effect has to be non-reversible. 

For my money, attenuation and byproducts would be the most practical indicators. Use a high gravity, intentionally bright wort that has not been allowed to absorb air post-boil. Deliberately underpitch and use closed fermentation. Test whether the lipidated brew (main batch only, not the starter) chokes in comparison to the oxygenated brew. Use a third comparison which receives neither lipids nor O2 just to ensure that we are brewing at pitching limits and that something chokes. Avoid dried yeast because it comes with glycogen reserves built up. All it takes is three 2L test batches and there could be a result in a week.


----------



## chappo1970 (19/5/09)

I am really liking all the idea's and thought's on this being put forward. 



muckanic said:


> ...For my money, attenuation and byproducts would be the most practical indicators. Use a high gravity, intentionally bright wort that has not been allowed to absorb air post-boil. Deliberately underpitch and use closed fermentation. Test whether the lipidated brew (main batch only, not the starter) chokes in comparison to the oxygenated brew. Use a third comparison which receives neither lipids nor O2 just to ensure that we are brewing at pitching limits and that something chokes. Avoid dried yeast because it comes with glycogen reserves built up. All it takes is three 2L test batches and there could be a result in a week.



I'm really liking this idea muckanic. Thanks for putting it up.

Although my initial thought was a lighter styled beer. My reasoning was that in a lighter styled beer there is very little to get lost in the body and or hopping of the beer. Say something like a SMASH (single malt and single hop) as we want to taste the difference between all 3. Also could be repeated by others willing to have a go and try it for themselves?

I agree that the use of a liquid yeast is a must. If it is a smack pack then it must remain unsmacked obviously. 

Another question then arises should the starters be done equally the same as I would assume it would be best to come from the same batch of yeast?

Cheers

Chappo


----------



## mika (19/5/09)

Beernut said:


> I have glanced through.... blah, blah blah
> Brian



Interesting show on the Brewing Networks 'Brew Strong' program on Hot Side Aeration. Some scientist dude they interviewed (I'm a little vague on the specifics now in case you hadn't noticed) had done some research and back to back testing and came to the conclusion that while HSA was a potential issue, a good fermentation would 'fix' itself.
Based on that, I would say that any aeration pre-ferment, Hot or cold, shouldn't be an issue as long as you have nice healthy active yeast to ferment out your beer. Oxygenation after fermentation could prove to be an issue, but I don't see the Olive oil helping you in that instance.


----------



## Nick JD (19/5/09)

I'm no Beerphysicserologist or nuthin' - but a few mils of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) thrown in would aerate your wort quick-smart.

2 H2O2 → 2 H2O + O2

Swirl some round in the bottom of the fermenter, add your cold wort, wait a few minutes and then whack in ya yeast. 

Like I said though, I'm no Beerphysicserologist. While it oxidizes your hydrogen sulphides it's probably going also to oxidize the crap out of your maltose...


----------



## Leigh (19/5/09)

citymorgue2 said:


> very interesting leigh. why dont you make up some controlled trials and bring them to the caseswap for testing by the expert panel.
> 
> seriously, it is interesting.



Love to, but no fermenters and no ingredients ATM...




JonnyAnchovy said:


> interesting idea, but I think the olive oil works through a different mechanism. From the thesis:
> 
> "The reason the yeast needs oxygen for a proper fermentation is because it needs to synthesize sterols and unsaturated fatty acids (UFAs) for its cell walls ... One interesting alternative to aerating the wort is to add the UFAs directly to the yeast during storage. Theoretically the yeast should be able to take up the UFAs and use them in a subsequent fermentation without the use of oxygen. This should result in a beer that has better resistance to staling oxidation without adversely effecting fermentation performance or flavor." (pp. 8).



Having had a bit more of a think about this, I think the best experiment would be to use radio tagging of the oxygen in either the atmosphere above the wort, or in the LFA's added (fairly easy to synthesize canola oil). Then one could collect the CO2 produced during fermentation and check whether it has the tagged oxygen or not.

This would be a definitive test to prove the mechanism...you could determine whether the CO2 is a biproduct of the reduction of the COOH groups on the LFA's if the yeast utilises these, or from oxidation reactions just like the normal ferment.

But I still stand by my statement that there is not enough canola oil to perform the activities you quote from pp8 of the thesis.

Nice to be able to do these types of studies, but I no longer have access to the right lab equipment


----------



## chappo1970 (19/5/09)

Leigh said:


> ...to use radio tagging of the oxygen in either the atmosphere above the wort, or in the LFA's added (fairly easy to synthesize canola oil...



:blink: !

Leigh I have a remote controlled car with a radio transceveiver but I don't know if I can occy strap that to an oxygen molecule? h34r: 

Sorry mate I'm dumb arsed builder you'll have to type sloooowly so I can understand, please?

Chappo


----------



## Leigh (19/5/09)

Chappo said:


> :blink: !
> 
> Leigh I have a remote controlled car with a radio transceveiver but I don't know if I can occy strap that to an oxygen molecule? h34r:
> 
> ...



Not a dumb arse at all mate...when I build stuff my squares are more diamond shaped LOL I measure three times, cut once and still balls it up!

radio tagged as in hit with some radiation to make it stand out from the crowd...


----------



## chappo1970 (19/5/09)

Leigh said:


> Not a dumb arse at all mate...when I build stuff my squares are more diamond shaped LOL I measure three times, cut once and still balls it up!
> 
> radio tagged as in hit with some radiation to make it stand out from the crowd...



Ahhh! So Chap Chap just needs to take a trip to the radiology dept at the RBH and see if they let him radiate his fermenting beer. :lol: 

Leigh please don't think I am taking the piss because I'm not but still it is funny!

Chappo


----------



## pingdong (17/2/11)

I am new at making beer but i want to have a go at this. I have bought a wyeast lager activator pack and planing to make it into a starter. I will do as follows but let me know if im wrong. I will make a 2 lts starter add a drop of olive oil and boil for 15 mins. cool in sink to below 22 and pitch yeast. then cover with foil and put in my temp controll at 22 till finished. then put in fridge for a few days. then take out of fridge on brew day and slowly raise temp. then tip out beer and add to my fresh wort. Do i then add more olive oil?


----------



## felten (18/2/11)

A drop is way overkill but I can't remember if that would lead to any problems or not. 

If I was new at this stuff I wouldn't start with screwing around with olive oil, it's just a bit of a novelty really. If you don't have a stirplate for your starters, then you can just shake them every hour. If you don't have the time to shake them, then you can just use more wort to begin with to get the yeast growth you need.

my 2c


----------



## Sammus (18/2/11)

felten said:


> A drop is way overkill but I can't remember if that would lead to any problems or not.
> 
> If I was new at this stuff I wouldn't start with screwing around with olive oil, it's just a bit of a novelty really. If you don't have a stirplate for your starters, then you can just shake them every hour. If you don't have the time to shake them, then you can just use more wort to begin with to get the yeast growth you need.
> 
> my 2c



+1

definitely don't worry about this if you're new at making beer, don't even need to worry too much about shaking and stuff, the difference will be SFA really. Just brew like normal...once your into it a bit you might want to try it to see if you can even notice any difference...


----------



## Deebo (20/3/12)

Dragging up a dead thread.. 

Found the information pretty interesting but was wondering if anyone still use olive oil in place of aeration? (if not, why not?)


----------



## donburke (20/3/12)

Deebo said:


> Dragging up a dead thread..
> 
> Found the information pretty interesting but was wondering if anyone still use olive oil in place of aeration? (if not, why not?)




i first read this thread and attached article about two years ago, and tried the tiniest little bit of olive oil in my starters for the next few brews, 

i honestly didnt notice any difference in the starters or finished beers, so abandoned the practice, i saved the oil for my salads and cooking


----------



## Bribie G (20/3/12)

Chappo was a keen advocate of this but it didn't seem to enhance his brewing career


----------



## Lecterfan (27/7/12)

Necro:

Just out of interest, from the Whitelabs blog dated 26th July...


----------



## Endo (27/7/12)

Lecterfan said:


> Necro:
> 
> Just out of interest, from the Whitelabs blog dated 26th July...



That's what has gotten me interested in the topic.

Its another one of those things with information, lots of sceptics and not a lot of data to go off for homebrewers :S


So for someone who doesnt usually use starters (I use the wyest smack packs) and being slightly paranoid about nasties.... One drop at flame out then pitch yeast? I no chill so the wort gets a good splashing as well.


Wonder if I should do some actual work today and stop reading up on this topic.... :huh:


----------



## QldKev (27/7/12)

1 drop goes a long way. I still aerate by pouring from the no-chill cube into the fermenter, but find this helps a bit. 

Have a read of  this olive-oil-thesis 


QldKev


----------



## mark0 (27/7/12)

Endo said:


> ... and being slightly paranoid about nasties.... One drop at flame out then pitch yeast?




i was also thinking about the sanitary aspects of this. Would be interesting to see the effects of adding to hot wort, rather than yeast starter.



Endo said:


> Wonder if I should do some actual work today and stop reading up on this topic.... :huh:



Nope.


----------



## Endo (27/7/12)

QldKev said:


> 1 drop goes a long way. I still aerate by pouring from the no-chill cube into the fermenter, but find this helps a bit.
> 
> Have a read of  this olive-oil-thesis



Think I will give it a bash in my next brew. Everything I have read has shown that there is no ill effects. Just maybe no positive either... Worth a shot.



mark0 said:


> i was also thinking about the sanitary aspects of this. Would be interesting to see the effects of adding to hot wort, rather than yeast starter.



Yeah need to research that bit more I think



mark0 said:


> Nope.



1.5hrs to go....


----------

