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

I agree about the water removing the flavor but have you looked at
the 2.5 phase centrifuge. We now have one in our local frantoio. It uses a
recycling system to put the extracted water back into the centrifuge.

Cheers Brian Chatterton.
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

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

Forgive my delay to answer, right now we are very busy, as you know.
It was nice to hear from you on this matter of "cold pressed olive
oil".
I know of the efforts made on three phase plants to introduce
extracted vegetable water back to the decanted in order to reduce the
addition of fresh water. I did not know that it was refereed to as
2.5 phase. They reported 35 to 40% reductions on total volume on
discarded vegetable water and approximately 30% rise in total
polyphenol content in the olive oil. It is a huge improvement on the
quality of the olive oil produced by this system. I do not have a
problem with this. I object when the description of another
extraction system such as the "Cold pressed" is used to describe it.
Pressing extraction cannot be equated and identified with centrifugal
extraction. And if centrifugal extraction is the same or better than
pressing extraction, why they refuse so passionately to use any term
suggesting centrifugal extraction?

It is unfair to mislead the consumer and it is unfair to the
traditional olive processor because his product's differentiation is
taken.

Best regards
George




In OliveOil@y..., Brian and Lynne Chatterton <blchatterton@t...>
wrote:
> George,
>
> I agree about the water removing the flavor but have you
looked at
> the 2.5 phase centrifuge. We now have one in our local frantoio.
It uses a
> recycling system to put the extracted water back into the
centrifuge.
>
> Cheers Brian Chatterton.
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

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

I agree entirely with what you say. The problem is that consumers do not
understand the technicalities of the various extraction processes. They are
already confused enough by the terms "extra virgin", "virgin", "pure",
"pomace", plain "olive oil", etc.

Most of them do, however, understand that "cold pressed" means that the oil
was produced without applying heat to the extent that the delicate
heat-sensitive flavour compounds, vitamins, anti-oxidants, etc. are damaged
in any way. I don't think they care too much about whether the oil was
pressed out with pressure, or pressed out with centrifugal force. An analogy
would be the case of the so-called "cold pressed" sunflower seed oils,
avocado oils,
canola oils, etc., which I am sure are not today produced on old mat
presses. Consumers are essentially concerned about chemical additives,
preservatives, colourants, refining and the heat-processing of foodstuffs.

Nobody is going to tell me that the oils produced by modern centrifuges
operated in accordance with the manufacturers' directives are damaged in any
way because of the application of heat. This is why they are described in
terms of "cold pressed", etc.

In any event, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Why is it that so
many centrifuged oils are earning excellent ratings with the IOOC accredited
taste panels, especially in the traditional olive oil producing countries,
where one would imagine there are still many traditional hydraulic presses
in operation?

Is this not an issue which should be taken up with the IOOC, who, after all,
are responsible for defining the terminology used for the various grades of
olive oil.

Regards,

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

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>The inclusion of various seeds such as canola into the processing debate
is confusing, my understanding is that olives & sesame are the only
fruits that do not require heating to produce oil. Therefore they are
the only oils that can be truly "cold pressed". To my mind it is clear
that a press exerts pressure onto the material whilst a centrifuge is a
separator and the rest is semantics.

Probably the only way to test each extraction process for efficiency is
to use the same fruit on two or more machines & test the product. To say
'X' oil is better than 'Y' oil when each may come from different
regions/countries would not allow for other environmental factors
involved.

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>When is something cold or not?

Do you set an absolute threshold or is something cold if no heat has been
added during the process? Then fruit pressed in ambient conditions of 35C
but not heated during processing is cold pressed but fruit pressed in
ambient conditions of 20C but heated during malaxing to 28 or 30 C is not
cold pressed? Who sets the definitions?

Another question to be asked is what happens at various temperature levels?
When do you start damaging the vitamins, when do you start affecting the
polyphenols or whatever it is that makes up the taste characteristics?

Also, a critical factor with olives is an enzyme called lipase, which when
heated to somewhere above 30 C causes the formation of free fatty acids.
That, as I understand it, is one of the major reasons why olives should be
pressed cold, i.e.. to prevent acid formation. Other fruits such as
avocados do not contain lipase to any significant extent, and can therefore
be processed at higher temperatures than olives without risking acid
formation.

Canola is another kettle of fish. Canola is genetically modified rapeseed,
and all of it is RBD'd (refined, bleached, deodorised). Comparing it with
EVOO is like comparing a fine Pinotage with Coca-Cola.

I do not profess to be an expert - by no means, but it is clearly a very
complex subject and I suspect that many who shoot off their mouths about
this and related subjects also do not really know what they are talking
about.

I am sure that many on this forum would much appreciate a paper on these
topics written in simple language from someone like Guido Costa or Stan
Kailis.

Kurt Kupper


-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Farquhar [mailto:rogfarlandsc@ozemail.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, 18 November 2001 16:18
To: OliveOil@egroups.com
Subject: [OliveOil] Re: cold press etc.


The inclusion of various seeds such as canola into the processing debate
is confusing, my understanding is that olives & sesame are the only
fruits that do not require heating to produce oil. Therefore they are
the only oils that can be truly "cold pressed". To my mind it is clear
that a press exerts pressure onto the material whilst a centrifuge is a
separator and the rest is semantics.

Probably the only way to test each extraction process for efficiency is
to use the same fruit on two or more machines & test the product. To say
'X' oil is better than 'Y' oil when each may come from different
regions/countries would not allow for other environmental factors
involved.

Roger Farquhar

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




------------------------------------------------
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>----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Farquhar" <rogfarlandsc@ozemail.com.au>
To: "OliveOil@egroups.com" <OliveOil@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 5:18 AM
Subject: [OliveOil] Re: cold press etc.


Roger says:
"To my mind it is clear that a press exerts pressure onto the material
whilst a centrifuge is a separator and the rest is semantics".

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Farquhar" <rogfarlandsc@ozemail.com.au>
To: "OliveOil@egroups.com" <OliveOil@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 11:38 PM
Subject: [OliveOil] re: first cold pressing

Roger says:
"A few random thoughts. Both methods, centrifuge & press, are presses
with the centrifuge using specific gravity as the force".


Hi Roger,

To which one of the above statements should I respond?

In our market there are (unscrupulous) suppliers selling "cold pressed"
sunflower, canola, avocado, etc. All this adds to complete customer
confusion.

I agree entirely with the last paragraph of your latest mail:

"Probably the only way to test each extraction process for efficiency is
to use the same fruit on two or more machines & test the product. To say
'X' oil is better than 'Y' oil when each may come from different
regions/countries would not allow for other environmental factors
involved."

That is exactly why I enquired as to whether our friend from Crete has any
personal experience in producing oil by means of two-phase centrifuges, in
order that an objective comparison could be made with his hydraulic presses,
using the same fruit.

We may eventually reach the stage where we start boring other members by
flogging this horse (or kangaroo), so we may have to consider e-mailing each
other directly.

Regards,

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

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>Hi all from a lurker
Please note that, while I haven't encountered cold-pressed canola, the
technology exists for, inter alia, the cold-pressing of grapeseeds,
sunflower seeds and flax seeds.
Steve Wilson
Cape Town

PS; to Kurt Kupper; our local canola is not GM .. merely hybridised.

----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Farquhar <rogfarlandsc@ozemail.com.au>
To: OliveOil@egroups.com <OliveOil@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 5:18 AM
Subject: [OliveOil] Re: cold press etc.


> The inclusion of various seeds such as canola into the processing debate
> is confusing, my understanding is that olives & sesame are the only
> fruits that do not require heating to produce oil. Therefore they are
> the only oils that can be truly "cold pressed".
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>Well Haluk, I think what you are saying is quite correct.

Educating the consumer is probably the biggest challenge facing the newly
evolving Australian industry. It is interesting to see the reaction from the
novice consumer when exposed to a high quality "tasty" olive oil or indeed
a number of different oils that have been harvested at different times and
of different cultivars. Generally people are surprised to know that they
have a choice and that olive oil has a place in their eating habits other
than cooking oil.

We use an enrossi 150 hydraulic press and find the taste sensation quite
good. The early harvested olives tend to offer the peppery double cough
taste while the later harvested ones tend to be a rich nutty flavour. Some
cultivars offer a more citrussy taste with others the mowed grass flavour.
I have tasted a number of oils processed through the centrificul system and
either my taste buds are descriminatory or the process detracts from the
flavour.

For what its worth they are my observations and up until 2 years ago I had
never really cared or had the oppotunity to understand any of this.

My observations lead me to conclude that the consumer is fairly easily
educated once exposed to the oppotunity and offered an explanation.

Bill Kearney
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

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

I agree, it's time that Stan entered the fray on this one!

According to Professor Boskou, whom I quoted in my answer to George,
lipolytic enzymes start acting immediately after the olives are crushed in a
mill (or are damaged by beating, mechanical harvesting, hail, fruit fly,
poor post-harvest storage, etc.).

He sets the temperature limit for the paste, oil and process water at 35
degrees C in order to avoid conditions which favour enzymatic activity. He
also sets an absolute upper limit of 90 minutes total mixing or malaxing
time for the crushed paste.

However, he sets the temp. limit even lower for the paste-diluting process
water in centrifuge systems, due to the solubility and potential loss of the
polyphenols via this process water. Here he advises a water temp. of 20 to
25 degrees C. Very low indeed!!

Steve the lurker has already indicated that canola is a hybrid rape, and not
a GM product. He has also defended his "cold pressed" sunflower and
grapeseed oils. What did you say about comparing Coca Cola to a fine
Pinotage?

Regards,

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

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

Thank you for breaking your silence. It is interesting to hear the opinions
and learn from the experiences of friends in all parts of the olive growing
world.

To get to the specifics of your mail, I do not believe there is
contradiction in what I said. I would like to say that the strong, peppery
oils are more indicative of the cultivar and the maturity of the fruit, the
terroir, etc., and less dependent upon the type of machinery used
(centrifuge or press). These characteristics are associated in no small way
with the polyphenol and glycosidic content of the oils.

It is contended by some that the hammer-mill crushers yield a more bitter,
stronger and spicy oil, when compared to the stone-mills, supposedly due to
the higher temperatures generated in the hammer-mill (up to 10 degrees C
higher than ambient in the hammer-mill). Because most centrifuges are
associated with hammer-mills, this may explain some of the difference.

But my problems with the pressing system relate to dirty mats, and the
associated defects related thereto, not to the press per se. I have tasted
(and produced) fantastic oils with presses, using new mats made from inert
synthetic material. But to keep these mats in this condition in an
industrial application is extremely difficult, well-nigh impossible in many
cases.

Some people prefer a bitter, stronger, spicy type of oil, and others prefer
a milder, sweeter oil, but nobody should prefer a defective, winey or fusty
oil.

Regards,

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