<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>Dear All,

I am a new subscriber to this list. I follow the discussions from
time to time, but today the subject of "cold pressed olive oil" was
close to home and I thought that I had something to offer on the
subject.

We are from Astrikas Estate on the island of Crete, Greece. We
cultivate, produce and market, through our company BIOLEA, stone
ground and cold pressed organic olive oil. My family has been
directly involved with olive oil production for six generations and
our accumulated experience orients my views (and practice) in favor
of the traditional extraction of olive oil. In order to show
impartiality, I will use scientific references to underline the fact
that TRUE "cold pressed" olive oil is of superior quality compared to
the centrifugal extraction method.

Cold pressed olive oil has different quality characteristics than
olive oil derived from the centrifugal extraction system. The main
drawback of the centrifugal system, other than heat, is that the
olive paste has to be thinned out with warm water in order to pass
from the centrifugal decanter. The olive oil antioxidants are water-
soluble, therefore, during the aquatic phase in the decanter a great
deal of antioxidants are lost in the discarded vegetable water.

" … the total polyphenol and o-diphenol content and induction time of
the oils obtained by pressing and percolation were significantly
higher than those of the centrifugally extracted oils."

Luciano Di Giovancchino,
" Influence of Extraction Systems on Olive Oil Quality" 1996.
Instituto Sperimentale per la Elaiotechnica Pescara, Italy.

"…the higher temperatures and longer beating times involved (in
centrifugal extraction), coupled with the use of hot water to dilute
the olive paste, remove and cause a deterioration in the minor
compounds that give the oil its protective and aromatic properties,
so altering its flavor and making it congenitally delicate from the
stand point of its keeping properties."
Mario Solinas,
"Principles of Olive Oil Extraction"
Bolletino dell' Academia Nazionale dell' Olivo No.3 1989.






I do agree that the centrifugal system is many times more efficient
and operates with fewer workers who do not need to be specially
trained. Therefore it makes olive oil more profitable for the
processor and more accessible to the consumer.
I do agree that the markets need inexpensive olive oil and this need
does justify some sacrifice in quality in order to make olive oil
affordable to a wide market segment.
I do agree that in order to produce TRUE cold pressed olive oil, and
run an economically sustainable operation, a premium has to be
applied on this olive oil.
I do not agree and I strongly protest the arbitrary use of terms
implying or referring to traditional extraction such as " cold
pressed" and "first cold pressed" on labels of olive oils extracted
by centrifugal decanters.

Companies that standardize olive oil (including Greek companies),
take advantage of the absence of local and international regulations
and unfairly profit on consumer's value perception.The fact that so
many olive oil companies use the term "cold pressed" or try to make
false associations to it in order to create added value proves that
they know the true value attributed to the traditional extraction
method.

Here I have to admit that while the olive oil industry is profiting
by capitalizing on terms referring to traditional pressing, efforts
are being made to improve the three-phase centrifugal extraction to
achieve higher quality.
The new two-phase centrifugal system introduces some of the discarded
vegetable water back to the decanter instead of using 100% new water
thus achieving impressing results. This system is not accepted by the
olive oil industry because the extracted olive pomace contains all
the vegetable water present, making it semi liquid. Until the issue
of the semi liquid pomace - which is not acceptable to the olive oil
refining industry - has been resolved, the two-phase system decanters
will be operating as three-phase systems with no change in the
quality of the olive oil produced.

This is an olive oil list and the professional people who participate
in it ought to understand and face with responsibility such important
olive oil issues.


George Dimitriadis

visit us at:
http://www.biolea.gr
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>Thank you George Dimitriadis for your information. It has certainly
cleared up a few 'grey' areas.

Roger Farquhar

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>George, I must take issue with you on a number of points:

Firstly, the "two-phase" centrifuge was introduced primarily to reduce the
problem of the water-soluble polyphenols being leached from the oil. This
was certainly a drawback of the old three-phase systems, which not only
created substantial soluble waste, but detracted from the quality and
character of the oil (not to mention the water consumption).

However, your statement that most "two-phase" systems are being run as
"three-phase" is rather sweping. Not all olive oil producers are involved in
producing olio sansa (pomace oil), and thus the soggyness of the solid waste
from the two-phase systems is not an issue for us.

Obviously you chaps have a pomace oil industry to support. I sincerely hope
you reserve this oil only for making soap and candles. The worldwide problem
of benzo-alpha-pyrene contaminant in pomace oil (the carcinogenic,
genotoxic, neurotoxic compound found in many of these residue oils) most
probably originates from the aggressive drying of this soggy pomace or sansa
(prior to the solvent extraction stage). BaP is a Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbon, which is formed during the incomplete burning of organic
matter, and has been found in pomace oils from all major producer countries,
including those from Greece (at up to 60 times the maximum permissible
level).

I'm sure that there are many producers out there, who, like ourselves, are
not involved in producing olive pomace oil, and who are operating their
systems the way they were designed to operate.

Over the last 70-odd years, we have used hydraulic presses, surface-tension
extraction systems and continuous decanters. To my mind, based on our
specific experience, there is nothing to touch the modern, well-designed
decanter (or centrifuge). It is a far more hygienic system, easy to clean,
and to keep clean. But like any other system, must be operated properly. We
run our system such that the pulp never exceeds 28 degrees C, nor do we
churn the pulp unduly. Whether the oil is pressed out by pressure or
centrifugal force is not the issue. The problem with the presses is that it
is virtually impossible to keep the press mats clean. Unless one very
vigourously steam-cleans the mats after every pressing (and this is totally
impractical), one is bound to be building up a contamination of steadily
increasing rancidity and other off-flavours in the mats. Try looking at the
mat fibres under a microscope, and see what I mean. Or just smell the mats
in many of these hard-core traditionalist mills.

As far as I am concerned, the debate is not between presses and centrifuges,
but between stone mills and hammer mills. Both have advantages and
disadvantages, and I'm not yet convinced, although the new hammermills seem
to be improving rapidly. It would be interesting to hear from those that
have experience in both.

Regards,

Guido Costa
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>Guido, Couldn't agree more

If there are people doing as you say and misusing the "Two Phase" systems in
a way that they were not designed for then lets not all get tarred with the
same brush

Regards

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Guido Costa [mailto:costa@mweb.co.za]
Sent: 13 November 2001 07:43
To: OliveOil@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [OliveOil] "true cold pressed"


George, I must take issue with you on a number of points:

Firstly, the "two-phase" centrifuge was introduced primarily to reduce the
problem of the water-soluble polyphenols being leached from the oil. This
was certainly a drawback of the old three-phase systems, which not only
created substantial soluble waste, but detracted from the quality and
character of the oil (not to mention the water consumption).

However, your statement that most "two-phase" systems are being run as
"three-phase" is rather sweping. Not all olive oil producers are involved in
producing olio sansa (pomace oil), and thus the soggyness of the solid waste
from the two-phase systems is not an issue for us.

Obviously you chaps have a pomace oil industry to support. I sincerely hope
you reserve this oil only for making soap and candles. The worldwide problem
of benzo-alpha-pyrene contaminant in pomace oil (the carcinogenic,
genotoxic, neurotoxic compound found in many of these residue oils) most
probably originates from the aggressive drying of this soggy pomace or sansa
(prior to the solvent extraction stage). BaP is a Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbon, which is formed during the incomplete burning of organic
matter, and has been found in pomace oils from all major producer countries,
including those from Greece (at up to 60 times the maximum permissible
level).

I'm sure that there are many producers out there, who, like ourselves, are
not involved in producing olive pomace oil, and who are operating their
systems the way they were designed to operate.

Over the last 70-odd years, we have used hydraulic presses, surface-tension
extraction systems and continuous decanters. To my mind, based on our
specific experience, there is nothing to touch the modern, well-designed
decanter (or centrifuge). It is a far more hygienic system, easy to clean,
and to keep clean. But like any other system, must be operated properly. We
run our system such that the pulp never exceeds 28 degrees C, nor do we
churn the pulp unduly. Whether the oil is pressed out by pressure or
centrifugal force is not the issue. The problem with the presses is that it
is virtually impossible to keep the press mats clean. Unless one very
vigourously steam-cleans the mats after every pressing (and this is totally
impractical), one is bound to be building up a contamination of steadily
increasing rancidity and other off-flavours in the mats. Try looking at the
mat fibres under a microscope, and see what I mean. Or just smell the mats
in many of these hard-core traditionalist mills.

As far as I am concerned, the debate is not between presses and centrifuges,
but between stone mills and hammer mills. Both have advantages and
disadvantages, and I'm not yet convinced, although the new hammermills seem
to be improving rapidly. It would be interesting to hear from those that
have experience in both.

Regards,

Guido Costa




----------------------------
Gifts for the Holidays
http://www.sadoun.com
----------------------------

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>Dear Guido,

When I posted my views on cold pressed olive oil I introduced myself
and qualified my position by my professional experience and
reputation. I am new in the list and you have to forgive me if I do
not recognize your name. It is only fair to ask for my self as well
as the rest of participants who care about this issue, to know what
substance the views which here expressed, carry.
So please, identify who you are and to whom are you refering to, when
you state: "the sogginess of the solid waste from the two-phase
systems is not an issue for us" ( "us" is your company? Your area?
Your region? Your country?).

I will wait for your answer and then I will address each and every
one of the points you are making in your Nov 13 e-mail.

Kind regards
George



--- In OliveOil@y..., "Guido Costa" <costa@m...> wrote:
> George, I must take issue with you on a number of points:
>
> Firstly, the "two-phase" centrifuge was introduced primarily to
reduce the
> problem of the water-soluble polyphenols being leached from the
oil. This
> was certainly a drawback of the old three-phase systems, which not
only
> created substantial soluble waste, but detracted from the quality
and
> character of the oil (not to mention the water consumption).
>
> However, your statement that most "two-phase" systems are being run
as
> "three-phase" is rather sweping. Not all olive oil producers are
involved in
> producing olio sansa (pomace oil), and thus the soggyness of the
solid waste
> from the two-phase systems is not an issue for us.
>
> Obviously you chaps have a pomace oil industry to support. I
sincerely hope
> you reserve this oil only for making soap and candles. The
worldwide problem
> of benzo-alpha-pyrene contaminant in pomace oil (the carcinogenic,
> genotoxic, neurotoxic compound found in many of these residue oils)
most
> probably originates from the aggressive drying of this soggy pomace
or sansa
> (prior to the solvent extraction stage). BaP is a Polycyclic
Aromatic
> Hydrocarbon, which is formed during the incomplete burning of
organic
> matter, and has been found in pomace oils from all major producer
countries,
> including those from Greece (at up to 60 times the maximum
permissible
> level).
>
> I'm sure that there are many producers out there, who, like
ourselves, are
> not involved in producing olive pomace oil, and who are operating
their
> systems the way they were designed to operate.
>
> Over the last 70-odd years, we have used hydraulic presses, surface-
tension
> extraction systems and continuous decanters. To my mind, based on
our
> specific experience, there is nothing to touch the modern, well-
designed
> decanter (or centrifuge). It is a far more hygienic system, easy to
clean,
> and to keep clean. But like any other system, must be operated
properly. We
> run our system such that the pulp never exceeds 28 degrees C, nor
do we
> churn the pulp unduly. Whether the oil is pressed out by pressure or
> centrifugal force is not the issue. The problem with the presses is
that it
> is virtually impossible to keep the press mats clean. Unless one
very
> vigourously steam-cleans the mats after every pressing (and this is
totally
> impractical), one is bound to be building up a contamination of
steadily
> increasing rancidity and other off-flavours in the mats. Try
looking at the
> mat fibres under a microscope, and see what I mean. Or just smell
the mats
> in many of these hard-core traditionalist mills.
>
> As far as I am concerned, the debate is not between presses and
centrifuges,
> but between stone mills and hammer mills. Both have advantages and
> disadvantages, and I'm not yet convinced, although the new
hammermills seem
> to be improving rapidly. It would be interesting to hear from those
that
> have experience in both.
>
> Regards,
>
> Guido Costa
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>Dear George

Without turning this forum into a promotional venue for our Company, let me
oblige and identify myself, as you have requested, in order that you may
decide whether or not the views expressed carry any substance (as you have
put it).

I have been involved in the family olive business ever since completing my
formal education in the 1970s (3 degrees in Chemistry and one in Business
Administration). The olive industry in our country, South Africa, was
founded by my forefathers, who came from Liguria in Italy.

I have a particular interest in the chemistry of oils and fats, specifically
olive oil, and am just as concerned as you are about the misrepresentation
of facts on the labels of olive oil packs, as well as in the advertising
thereof. (One of my major gripes relates to the fact that much of the oil
exported from Italy as "Italian" is not Italian at all).

The "us" I was referring to includes ALL the olive oil producers in our
country, none of whom are involved in the production of olive pomace oil
(olio sansa).

I would welcome some active debate on this forum (Jamal Sadoun permitting!).
We all stand to learn something thereby. It has become too much of a "mutual
admiration society", so I haven't been contributing much over the last year,
hence the reason you failed to recognize my name.

The debate concerning presses vs. centrifugal extraction systems has been
around for as long as the centrifugal systems have. I am sure that for every
scientific reference which you can quote advocating presses, I would be able
to counter with one promoting the centrifugal system. But I am not a
marketing agent for any specific system. The chaps at Pieralisi, Rapanelli,
Alfa Laval, etc. would do a far better job, I am sure. In our factory, we
have both systems (our oldest press, now a monument, is a Galardi, dating
back to the early part of last century), but have discontinued using the
presses for the reasons I mentioned in my previous mail).

What I can say, however, is that it is pretty much accepted by almost all
the
internationally acclaimed Italian olive oil tasting experts that the latest
centrifugal systems produce a definitively superior oil to the traditional
pressing systems, for the reasons I mentioned in my previous mail.

You are quite correct in casting some doubt on the older centrifugal
systems, but do not close your eyes to the improvements that have been made
since the publication of your favourite scientific references.

I look forward to some vigorous debate on this issue (not only from
George!). And George, please indicate the extent of your personal experience
in operating the latest two-phase centrifugal systems in your family's
factory. I am a firm believer in basing "impartial" opinion on first hand
experience, and not on partially selected scientific references based on
dated machinery.

True warmest regards,

Guido Costa
Paarl
South Africa
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>--- Dear Guido,

Thank you for your introduction.

I am going to respond to your comments in sequence.

Your statements: "not all olive oil producers are involved in
producing olio sansa (pomace oil)" and "I'm sure that there are many
producers out there, who, like ourselves, are not involved in
producing olive pomace oil, and who are operating their systems the
way they where designed to operate." In a funny way this is true.
Even if you (or any other for this matter) wanted to produce pomace
oil with a two-phase decanter you would not be able to do it. An
olive oil extraction plant cannot produce pomace oil. But it can
produce positive cash flow by making extracted pomace cash earning by-
product.

For the production of pomace oil an industrial size refinery is
needed. We have two such refineries in the prefecture of Chania and
there are less than ten of them on the whole island. They need to
collect all the pomace produced by the olive processing factories of
the island in order to be efficient. I do not know the total
production of olive oil of South Africa (you can perhaps inform us)
but our island, Crete, produces approximately 5% of the world
production (120.000 to 145.000 tons) of which 85% is extra virgin.
This gives anyone a good indication that our thousand year old
tradition has made olive oil cultivation and production not only our
business, but part of our culture, our religion and part of our
everyday life. If there is a new technology in olive oil extraction I
assure you that this is one of the first places where this technology
will be brought in and demonstrated by its manufacturers. Our
experience in producing olive oil is not individual or "specific" as
you call it but rather collective. Our experience has been earned by
interacting in practice. We learn every day from each other. We are
over 250 olive oil factories in our prefecture alone and over 1.000
on the island. The age of technology used is six years old on
average. EU and Greek government funded renewal programs made this
possible.

Pomace oil, and its blends with extra virgin olive oil, is a legal
product and together with refined olive oil comprises 70% of world
olive oil consumption. Spain, Italy and Greece are the major
producers and exporters of the above products. These products, as
long as they are correctly labeled, are very important for many
reasons: they give an affordable alternative to olive oil and an
effective competitor to other seed oils; they are the olive oil
products that open new markets and help people new to olive oil
acquire a taste for it, be educated about olive oil, and eventually
graduate to virgin and extra virgin olive oils.

When the pomace oil has been extracted, the remaining pomace is the
ground dry olive pit, which is recycled by using it to fire our
furnaces. Creating cash products from the solid discards of the olive
factory, promoting recycling, and protecting the environment from
further olive pollutants are the main points which create a strong
case for the three phase centrifugal decanter. In the case of two-
phase extraction, where you take in the pomace together with the
vegetable water in one phase, someone has to pay for the energy
needed to dry the pomace. That's why most of the new two-phase
decanters are operating as three-phase decanters.

Perhaps you can tell us exactly how South Africans deal with this
kind of pomace, so that the sogginess of the pomace is not "an issue"
for you.

- About Benzo-alpha-pyrene.

I am not qualified to debate on Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. I
will state only that, in all fairness one has to examine the presence
of these substances in all the foods we consume which need some kind
of drying or roasting -sometimes aggressive as you the chemist put it-
like roasted peanuts, coffee, or charcoal-grilled steaks, hamburgers
or pizza and bread cooked in wood fired ovens. Do you ever stop and
wonder if the smoked salmon you enjoy might contain Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons above "accepted" levels? What kind of interests
might be behind targeting olive pomace olive oil?

- About the olive presses.

You are insinuating that the scientific references, which I offered
in defense of my views, are outdated while you base your argument
on "your specific experience". I would think that your "specific
experience " might be outdated. If you consult with the manufacturers
which you mentioned (Pieralisi, Rapanelli …) you will certainly be
surprised to see how much the traditional press which you refer to
has changed. Everything is in INOX , pressing diaphragms are made out
of 100% nylon thread (easier to clean), automatic spreaders and
loaders are now used. Of course they can never reach the production
capacities and the production cost effectiveness of the decanters.
This system (stone mill and press) has been in existence for
millennia, more or less unchanged in working principles. It still
produces such a high quality olive oil that you chaps with the
modern technology have to "borrow" descriptive terms such "cold
pressed" or "first cold pressed" evoking the traditional extraction
method in order to capitalize on its quality attributes. Personally,
I am preparing to upgrade from the 20-year-old stone mill and press
system which I currently use to one of those bright new traditional
installations with modern automation and higher output for a
substantial investment, in order to meet my clients demands.

There is no such thing as "centrifugal press". Centrifugal force is
used to separate faster immiscible liquids with different densities
by accelerating the gravitational force by angular rotation.

Those who believe that the consumer need not be informed or will not
be capable of comprehending production processes in order to develop
individual preference for olive oil, grossly underestimate the modern
consumer who is called upon to pay a hefty price for a bottle of
olive oil. One has to consider the speed and efficiency with which
information is made available today in order to understand how
quickly today's olive oil consumer is developing educated
preferences, which parallel wine consumption. If any one really
believes that there is nothing better than their two-phase extraction
system they should start informing consumers by declaring it on their
product description.

As far as reputable olive oil tasters and experts are concerned, what
they prefer, value, and praise, clearly will be the top quality olive
oils that have been produced with a concern for preserving the best
organoleptic properties regardless of extraction method.

Although it is acknowledged here that quality of olive oil has
improved in our times by leaps and bounds with all the extraction
systems in use, one has to consider and appraise all operational
aspects of each olive oil extraction system. Energy consumption
issues and environmental issues have to balance with production
efficiency and quality.
By arguing in favor of the traditional extraction method I am not
proposing to go back in time. Rather, I believe that production
principles which have been proven over time, when they are adapted to
current demands and operated from a scientific base, are still the
best choice.

Thank you for the opportunity to state my views. I hope as you do
that more members of this list participate in these issues. It is a
topic that won't go away by ignoring it.

George Dimitriadis.
http://www.biolea.gr
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>Dear George

Thank you for your response. It is a pleasure to correspond with someone who
makes the effort to respond in an eloquent and well-considered manner.

I am, however, well aware of the methods of producing pomace oil, and the
concomitant requirement for an industrial-sized solvent-extraction
"refinery" plant.

I am also well aware of the fascinating and proud history of Crete in the
development and spread of the olive tree throughout the world. You may
correct me, but I believe it was the Minoans who were responsible for
initially spreading the olive to Greece, Italy, France and possibly other
regions in the Mediterranean.

South Africa produces a miniscule amount of olive oil, insignificant by
world standards, and it is for this very reason that virtually 100% of the
oil produced here is EVOO. All our fruit is hand-picked (not beaten from the
trees with poles), and pressed or centrifuged within a day or two of
harvesting. Our trees are healthy, free of olive-knot and most other common
olive pests and diseases, and many of our producers are actively moving to
organic or biodynamic-type practices (facilitated by the freedom of the
traditional olive diseases, which make these practices rather difficult in
many well-established olive growing areas). In total, we have only about 25
olive oil factories, some of which are "boutique" producers, using Oliomio,
Enorossi, etc. But the competition between the various companies is fierce
in terms of quality standards.

I am also quite aware that pomace oil, blended with virgin, is a perfectly
"legal" product (assuming acceptable levels of PAHs, naturally!), but so is
refined olive oil and its blends with virgin. My problem with these oils is
that, barring their high monounsaturate content, the healthful properties
found in
natural EVOO oils are virtually all missing. One might then just as well
use a canola, which, as Kurt Kupper has put it, is RBDd (refined,
bleached & deodorised). By the way, Kurt, canola is not a GM food, as far as
I am aware. It is a low-euricic acid rapeseed which was bred & selected by
the Canadians. (Euricic acid is toxic). Breeding is rather different to
genetic
modification. And here I must concur with Steve Wilson (for a change!)

If the object is to create a more affordable, bland-tasting, diluted "olive
oil", so as to open up new markets and help people aquire a taste for olive
oil, in the hope that they will graduate to virgin and extra virgin oils,
then one would also be able to justify products such as so-called "Olive Oil
Blend" currently being sold on our market. These are products which contain
an unspecified 10% to 20% olive oil, their packs emblazoned with fruiting
olive branches and the complete absence of any reference to or depiction of
the 80% to 90% sunflower seed oil content!

Getting back to our "soggy pomace": it is sun-dried and treated with lime,
and composted slowly, eventually to be returned to the soil.

Concerning benzo-alpha-pyrene, I concede that many foodstuffs contain traces
of the various PAHs, especially the char-grilled and barbecued meats you
mentioned. Cigarette smoke and other environmental pollutants are also major
culprits. But "accepted" levels in edible oils are deemed not to exceed 2 to
3 ppb. When a pomace oil contains over 100 ppb, as has been the case in
numerous instances, even the most lax health authorities are likely to
respond. And I'm sure they'd do the same in the case of excessive levels in
smoked salmon, coffee, pizza or peanuts. I don't believe it is a grand
conspiracy against pomace oil, per se. For your information these oils have
been banned in countries as diverse as Saudi Arabia and Korea.

The constant improvements in traditional pressing systems are well known.
However, from the theoretical standpoint, the only sure way of ensuring
complete prevention of contamination by press mats would be to use
disposable mats, renewed at each pressing (naturally not practical). On a
microscopic scale, contamination builds up from the very first time the mats
are put into service. Being designed to act as filters, the mats are
porous, and, in practice, are very difficult to keep clean. We have even
designed our own mats from synthetic materials, but even they were not
perfectly acceptable. Excuse me for harping on this point, but allow me to
quote a scientific reference in my defence. It is from the 1996 work of
Professor Dimitrios Boskou, of whom you have no doubt heard, and whom I
regard as one of the leading international authorities on the chemistry of
olive oil:

"Particularly noteworthy is that, by means of the pressure system, oils with
a higher content of n-octane, 2-methyl-1-propanol, 3-methyl-1-butanol and
acetic acid are obtained, compared to the oils obtained by means of
centrifugation. These substances, which are formed by the decomposition of
hydroperoxides and by fermentation that develops in the olive paste
remaining on filtering diaphragms, are responsible for organoleptic defects
known as "winey" and "fusty"".

As regards the disadvantages of the pressure system, he emphasises "Mats
become contaminated".

As regards the dual-phase Decanter, he concludes: "The only drawback of the
dual-phase decanter is that the pomace it produces has a higher moisture
content...."

You do have a point when it comes to energy consumption issues, specifically
if you are diverting pomace for oil extraction, but, as I initially said,
this does not affect our industry. In your case, the dry presscake from
hydraulic presses is far superior to the soggy "pomace" eminating from ours.
But we are selling EVOO and not pomace.

To conclude, let me say that we did, after all, build up our industry using
traditional pressing technology. And my forefathers were very successful in
pressing perfectly good oils for very many years. But I enjoy playing
Devil's Advocate, and appreciate your responses. I have exactly the same
types of arguments with my father!! Maybe we will meet one day, in Crete or
in South Africa. By which time new advances would have rendered both our
systems obsolete.

Regards,

Guido
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>George, Guido, Haluk and others

What food for thought you have all offered.

In Australia we are just beginning to come to terms with the olive and it's
oil. In a thousand years we may be as advantaged as yourselves in terms of
experience but we will still be a thousand years behind in terms of culture
and appreciation of olive oil but we hope to improve!

Mind you, the new born child has still to learn from whatever background
they may spring from. Certainly hereditary traits may be of value but,
equally, they may be of disadvantage.

As a very old, new born child of the olive world, may I make these
observations based on my actual experience? I use a 2 phase Pieralisi
(graduating from a 2 phase Oliomio) but have 1st hand experience of/or used
a 3 phase Pieralisi, a Sinolea and various traditional mat presses (ss
mats). In 99, 00 & 01 we did some trials using various of the instruments
with the same batch of fruit.

In the 1st trial (3 phase Pieralisi Vs Oliomio 100) the results were, by my
nose and palate, far superior with the Oliomio (in 1999). My opinion was
that the superior quality was due to lower paste temperatures (35 vs 25), a
longer malaxing period, a slower throughput of paste through the decanter
and no added water throughout the process. Here are 4 basic variables
therefore that have to be contended with. Add to these the different
machinery (malaxing action, decanter properties, water content etc) and
those variables compound. A mere week later (same grove, same fruit, stable
temperatures) we ran the a batch through a traditional press. Ambient temp
much the same, olives were stone ground and pasted onto ss mats.

We could discern no difference btwn the Oliomio and trad press oils.

In 2000 we trialled (on the same fruit at the same time under similar
climatic conditions) fruit on Oliomio, Sinolea & Trad Press (synthetic
mats). Extraction rate was superior with the ubiquitious Oliomio and the
taste sensations greater than Sinolea but comparable to the Trad Press of
the preceding year. In
part this may be due to varietal (Verdale in this instance) as much as other
variables. The Sinolea, with this fruit, was not flash! In taste nor
volume.

This year (2001) a public trial was done at Olive Week in Melbourne.
The Trad Press was not used as the owners did not like the fruit being used.
The Sinolea did not perform well with the
fruit (Verdale again) whilst the Oliomio produced some really good oil.
With our own 2 stage Pieralisi we did significant batches of 3 varietals
(Frantoio,
Verdale & Manzanillo) and produced what we thought were excellent oils as
did others (3 Gold, 5 Silver, 4 Bronze). All the oils produced were extra
virgin with a max FFA of 0.4 and a min FFA of 0.18.

Regards
Peter Caird
www.victorianolivegroves.com
0418 392 157


Your statements: "not all olive oil producers are involved in
producing olio sansa (pomace oil)" and "I'm sure that there are many
producers out there, who, like ourselves, are not involved in
producing olive pomace oil, and who are operating their systems the
way they where designed to operate." In a funny way this is true.
Even if you (or any other for this matter) wanted to produce pomace
oil with a two-phase decanter you would not be able to do it. An
olive oil extraction plant cannot produce pomace oil. But it can
produce positive cash flow by making extracted pomace cash earning by-
product.

For the production of pomace oil an industrial size refinery is
needed. We have two such refineries in the prefecture of Chania and
there are less than ten of them on the whole island. They need to
collect all the pomace produced by the olive processing factories of
the island in order to be efficient. I do not know the total
production of olive oil of South Africa (you can perhaps inform us)
but our island, Crete, produces approximately 5% of the world
production (120.000 to 145.000 tons) of which 85% is extra virgin.
This gives anyone a good indication that our thousand year old
tradition has made olive oil cultivation and production not only our
business, but part of our culture, our religion and part of our
everyday life. If there is a new technology in olive oil extraction I
assure you that this is one of the first places where this technology
will be brought in and demonstrated by its manufacturers. Our
experience in producing olive oil is not individual or "specific" as
you call it but rather collective. Our experience has been earned by
interacting in practice. We learn every day from each other. We are
over 250 olive oil factories in our prefecture alone and over 1.000
on the island. The age of technology used is six years old on
average. EU and Greek government funded renewal programs made this
possible.

Pomace oil, and its blends with extra virgin olive oil, is a legal
product and together with refined olive oil comprises 70% of world
olive oil consumption. Spain, Italy and Greece are the major
producers and exporters of the above products. These products, as
long as they are correctly labeled, are very important for many
reasons: they give an affordable alternative to olive oil and an
effective competitor to other seed oils; they are the olive oil
products that open new markets and help people new to olive oil
acquire a taste for it, be educated about olive oil, and eventually
graduate to virgin and extra virgin olive oils.

When the pomace oil has been extracted, the remaining pomace is the
ground dry olive pit, which is recycled by using it to fire our
furnaces. Creating cash products from the solid discards of the olive
factory, promoting recycling, and protecting the environment from
further olive pollutants are the main points which create a strong
case for the three phase centrifugal decanter. In the case of two-
phase extraction, where you take in the pomace together with the
vegetable water in one phase, someone has to pay for the energy
needed to dry the pomace. That's why most of the new two-phase
decanters are operating as three-phase decanters.

Perhaps you can tell us exactly how South Africans deal with this
kind of pomace, so that the sogginess of the pomace is not "an issue"
for you.

- About Benzo-alpha-pyrene.

I am not qualified to debate on Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. I
will state only that, in all fairness one has to examine the presence
of these substances in all the foods we consume which need some kind
of drying or roasting -sometimes aggressive as you the chemist put it-
like roasted peanuts, coffee, or charcoal-grilled steaks, hamburgers
or pizza and bread cooked in wood fired ovens. Do you ever stop and
wonder if the smoked salmon you enjoy might contain Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons above "accepted" levels? What kind of interests
might be behind targeting olive pomace olive oil?

- About the olive presses.

You are insinuating that the scientific references, which I offered
in defense of my views, are outdated while you base your argument
on "your specific experience". I would think that your "specific
experience " might be outdated. If you consult with the manufacturers
which you mentioned (Pieralisi, Rapanelli .) you will certainly be
surprised to see how much the traditional press which you refer to
has changed. Everything is in INOX , pressing diaphragms are made out
of 100% nylon thread (easier to clean), automatic spreaders and
loaders are now used. Of course they can never reach the production
capacities and the production cost effectiveness of the decanters.
This system (stone mill and press) has been in existence for
millennia, more or less unchanged in working principles. It still
produces such a high quality olive oil that you chaps with the
modern technology have to "borrow" descriptive terms such "cold
pressed" or "first cold pressed" evoking the traditional extraction
method in order to capitalize on its quality attributes. Personally,
I am preparing to upgrade from the 20-year-old stone mill and press
system which I currently use to one of those bright new traditional
installations with modern automation and higher output for a
substantial investment, in order to meet my clients demands.

There is no such thing as "centrifugal press". Centrifugal force is
used to separate faster immiscible liquids with different densities
by accelerating the gravitational force by angular rotation.

Those who believe that the consumer need not be informed or will not
be capable of comprehending production processes in order to develop
individual preference for olive oil, grossly underestimate the modern
consumer who is called upon to pay a hefty price for a bottle of
olive oil. One has to consider the speed and efficiency with which
information is made available today in order to understand how
quickly today's olive oil consumer is developing educated
preferences, which parallel wine consumption. If any one really
believes that there is nothing better than their two-phase extraction
system they should start informing consumers by declaring it on their
product description.

As far as reputable olive oil tasters and experts are concerned, what
they prefer, value, and praise, clearly will be the top quality olive
oils that have been produced with a concern for preserving the best
organoleptic properties regardless of extraction method.

Although it is acknowledged here that quality of olive oil has
improved in our times by leaps and bounds with all the extraction
systems in use, one has to consider and appraise all operational
aspects of each olive oil extraction system. Energy consumption
issues and environmental issues have to balance with production
efficiency and quality.
By arguing in favor of the traditional extraction method I am not
proposing to go back in time. Rather, I believe that production
principles which have been proven over time, when they are adapted to
current demands and operated from a scientific base, are still the
best choice.

Thank you for the opportunity to state my views. I hope as you do
that more members of this list participate in these issues. It is a
topic that won't go away by ignoring it.

George Dimitriadis.
http://www.biolea.gr



------------------------------------------------
Invite others to join this group. It is simple:
* * * * * * *
Click here: http://sadoun.com/olive/greetings.htm
-------------------------------------------------

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>Peter

Your experience just goes to show that the specific cultivar, the condition
and maturity of the fruit, as well as the terroir have much more to do with
the quality of the oil than the specific type of machinery used (we're
talking about modern machinery carefully used according to the
manufacturer's specifications).

One can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, as they say. If you start
off with the wrong cultivar, etc., no machine (press, centrifuge or
percolation system) will give you a good oil.

We also haven't had good results with Sinolea, even on cultivars like
Frantoio & Leccino. Besides, you still have to press the (partially)
"de-oiled" paste after passing it through the Sinolea. Maybe this system
works okay in series with a centrifuge. Theoretically speaking, a Sinolea
should actually give quite a good quality oil.

There are quite a few Oliomios operating in South Africa, and the chaps are
getting impressive results. Some very good oils are also being made on small
presses out here. And naturally, the biggest volumes are being produced on
Pieralisi and Rapanelli Centrifuges.

In any event, all our local oils are far superior to the "omnipresent pseudo
Italian" oils cluttering our market (as a member of another related group so
aptly
put it).

Regards,

Guido
</pre>
</td></tr></table>