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

I am an co-owner of an old Super-Press plant in Canakkale, Turkey. I have
been following the discussion with regards to extraction methods with
silence. To my opinion both systems do have advantages and disadvantages in
general. Though, when it comes to the taste, I am obliged to interfere your
comments.

Your opinion regarding the consumers ignorance about the differences of
extraction methods contradict with your words
'one must bear in mind that many people do not like the
strong piquant (peppery), throat-catching taste of fresh low-acid extra
virgin olive oil (the 2- and 3-cough oils), and actually prefer the milder
taste of an aged (somewhat oxidized) oil.' as expressed in your answer to
Jabber.

Because traditionally-pressed fresh, low-acid extra virgin olive oil does
not have thorat-catching, strong piquant taste unlike the oil extracted
through the centrifuge system. It is not necessary to have an aged and /or
somewhat oxidized oil in order to obtain a mild taste. As you have stated,
the ordinary consumers may not recognize the difference between the
extraction methods but they can feel the difference between their tastes. I
have experienced this case by observing the reactions and comments of
ordinary consumers tasting two kinds of freshly extracted oil on different
occasions and places. So it should be our mission to inform consumers where
this difference come from. Then they may have their liberty to choose their
oil according to their preferences of tastes.

Regards

Haluk Yurtkuran
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

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

I completely agree on what you say.
It couldn't have been expressed in any better way:
Let me quote this passage :

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,

Mahmut Boynudelik



----- Original Message -----
From: <gio@biolea.gr>
To: <OliveOil@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 9:14 PM
Subject: [OliveOil] Re: cold press etc.


> ---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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> 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>Dear Guido,

Sorry for my late response to your explanations regarding taste and hygenic
issues of traditional pressing. My reaction was addressed mainly to your
statement about the ignorance of consumers distincting the difference
between the oils produced by different modes. You also agree with me by
saying;

'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). '

It is for sure that there is a very distinctive taste difference between
two and the former as you put clearly has a stronger, spicy and bitter taste
which I prefer to describe it as ' throat-crunching!'

As for the hygene of mats concerned, we are still using mats made of coconut
fibers which are renewed in every two or three years. We wash them with hot
water after every pressing day. Maybe this sounds very tideous work for you
but our labor force up here accept it as a routine job and there is no
record of failing the lab tests beacuse of strange substances in our oil so
far.

Best Regards

Haluk of Adatepe

http://www.adatepe.com
</pre>
</td></tr></table>