# Anchor Steam Ale Clone... Yeast?



## bevdawg (8/2/11)

Hi guys.

So I made a beer similar to Anchor Steam Ale on the weekend, and I pitched a small starter in it around 26 hours ago. The starter seemed a little sad, and didn't produce any noticable co2 when shaken up (usually I get a hiss etc). I pitched it into well aerated wort and I'm seeing NO signs of fermentation. Nothing on the surface, it's totally clear. No condensation on the clingwarp and no real cone of co2 pushing it up.

It's currently at room temp, as I wanted it to make a start before I dropped to 16c.

Recipie was:

4.2kg pale malt @50c for 30, then 66 for 90min
25g Northern Brewer for 90min, 14g for 15, 14g at flame out

Yeast was Wyeast 2112, it was a little old dated from November. Made into a 1ltr starter...

So wondering if anyone has used this yeast and knows if it just had a lag time? Also, I'm wondering if it's worth pitching something else? I have some Wyeast 2007 from a previous brew... would that work? Or just chuck some dry ale yeast on it and make it into something else?


----------



## Jimboley (8/2/11)

bevdawg said:


> Hi guys.
> 
> So I made a beer similar to Anchor Steam Ale on the weekend, and I pitched a small starter in it around 26 hours ago. The starter seemed a little sad, and didn't produce any noticable co2 when shaken up (usually I get a hiss etc). I pitched it into well aerated wort and I'm seeing NO signs of fermentation. Nothing on the surface, it's totally clear. No condensation on the clingwarp and no real cone of co2 pushing it up.
> 
> ...




I've use that Wyeast Cali Lager before and it kicked off pretty quickly,
It likes to ferment at 20C-22C.
Maybe your starter didnt work? I've done this before because I didnt rinse out the sterilizer enough from starter bottle?...just a thought.
If I were u I would pitch some US05 or equivalent before it gets infected. Ferment at 18-20C

I would recommend tasting your starters before you pitch...(not the yeast the wort)
It should be dry not sweet to taste and not have any gross/funky flavours.
Good Luck
:icon_cheers:


----------



## kenlock (8/2/11)

From memory (and a dull memory at that) my last starter made from #2112 took a while to kick off. Yeast was from a pack which was built up from a pack up to 3L then split. Starter built up over a couple of days (multipling on the bottom) before really kicking off. 

So it could still be alright. Another 24 hours and you should be seeing signs.

Hope this helps.


----------



## DanRayner (8/2/11)

+1 I'm with Jim

Kick it off asap with some US-05. 

In his chapter on California Common Ray Daniels suggests that a fair proportion of National Homebrew Competition second-round place-getters have used US-05 with sucess - indicating that you don't have to worry too much about yeast selection for this beer, it is probably more important to use the right hops and get the right proportions of crystal...


----------



## bevdawg (8/2/11)

I did make the starter on the fly... so I soaked it in my no rinse, drained it, but did not rinse... I thought this was OK with no rinse sanitizers? There was no pools or foam in the starter bottle though. Would that hurt the yeast?

Forgot to mention there was 200g of crystal in the grain bill as well


----------



## Pennywise (8/2/11)

I've had good succes with Wyeast 2112. But as above, Its also important to get the right amount of crystal & good balance of hops. I'd use medium crystal


----------



## bevdawg (8/2/11)

So I have a packet of US05 in the fridge, and some Wyeast 2007 I harvested off a Kirin Lager clone I made. Which of the two would be best? I guess with US05 it can be fermented warmer which is handy as my fridge is currently lagering the Kirin mentioned above at 7c.


----------



## bigfridge (8/2/11)

Jimboley said:


> I've use that Wyeast Cali Lager before and it kicked off pretty quickly,
> It likes to ferment at 20C-22C.



Anchor fermets this yeast at 60 degrees Farenheight.


----------



## DanRayner (8/2/11)

At this stage I'd be using US-05 cos it's easy and ready to go and will sort it all out 

As for crystal - I use medium and 10% of the grist weight. So for a 22L end of boil I use 4.5kg of Pale ale and 500g of medium crystal with possibly an occasional and small addition of wheat (100g)


----------



## speedie (9/2/11)

I would give some credit to the yeast that is in use for your sweetness that you have described

Some leave a dry brew while others have a specific residual sweetness 

Crystal malt is not the only constitute in what you are discussing

I have used some additions of darker malts to obtain a similar color that crystal produces and have still had sweetish ale to go

The last batch was US 05 v northwest both ale both in the same wort both different brews

05 dryish n/west sweetish

speedie


----------



## bum (9/2/11)

speedie, this style of beer is synonymous with a particular strain of yeast. The only reason yeast selection is being discussed above is because OP's starter has failed to fire and time is short. The discussions about crystal are in light of the correct yeast being used. You can't just use a random amount of crystal (or none as you seem to be suggesting) and a yeast with attenuative properties to suit and still call your beer a cal common/steam beer. Your advice above is extremely broad and general and the issue is quite particular and specific.


----------



## under (9/2/11)

I made this a while back and have to say was a cracker after a month or so in the keg. 

BeerSmith Recipe Printout - http://www.beersmith.com
Recipe: 13 - California Common
Brewer: Dazza
Asst Brewer: 
Style: California Common Beer
TYPE: All Grain
Taste: (40.0) 

Recipe Specifications
--------------------------
Batch Size: 23.00 L 
Boil Size: 27.00 L
Estimated OG: 1.056 SG
Estimated Color: 24.2 EBC
Estimated IBU: 30.2 IBU
Brewhouse Efficiency: 75.00 %
Boil Time: 75 Minutes

Ingredients:
------------
Amount Item Type % or IBU 
4.20 kg Pilsner, Malt Craft Export (Joe White) (3.Grain 75.00 % 
0.50 kg Carahell (Weyermann) (25.6 EBC) Grain 8.93 % 
0.50 kg Vienna Malt (Weyermann) (5.9 EBC) Grain 8.93 % 
0.30 kg Biscuit (Dingemans) (44.3 EBC) Grain 5.36 % 
0.10 kg Chocolate Malt (Joe White) (750.6 EBC) Grain 1.79 % 
20.00 gm Northern Brewer [9.60 %] (60 min) Hops 19.6 IBU 
20.00 gm Northern Brewer [9.60 %] (15 min) Hops 9.7 IBU 
20.00 gm Northern Brewer [9.60 %] (1 min) Hops 0.8 IBU 
3.00 gm Calcium Chloride (Mash 60.0 min) Misc 
6.00 gm Gypsum (Calcium Sulfate) (Mash 60.0 min) Misc 
1 Pkgs California Lager (Wyeast Labs #2112) Yeast-Lager 


Mash Schedule: My Mash
Total Grain Weight: 5.60 kg


----------



## DanRayner (9/2/11)

Bum, it really isn't as black and white as that.

And Speedie, it really isn't as grey as that.

Check Ray Daniels' book Designing Great Beers, I have had excellent success with recipes I have formulated with this book, specifically with a Cali Common recipe. Daniels provides statistics on the the ingredients in recipes that have won medals at past NHCs in the US and to summarise the Cali Common section:

2-row Pale Ale malt was the dominant base malt; the most common speciality malt was medium crystal and it was most commonly used on its own and most commonly at around 10% (although, a percentage of winning beers used combinations of other speciality malts); the most common yeast was a California lager yeast used at warmer temps (although others successfully used other lager yeasts and still others used American ale yeasts like US-05, personally, as this is a hop&malt driven beer I prefer US-05 cos it's easy); and finally a high percentage of winners at NHCs used only US Northern Brewer hops to attain that "minty, woody, rustic" character.

What I am saying is you can diverge from this and still be within style (Bum) but if you diverge too far (Speedie) you will no longer have what judges at comps call a California Common and may end up with something more akin to just a regular American Pale/Amber/Brown ale - which, if you don't care what judges at comps think, then all well and good


----------



## bum (9/2/11)

The hideous incongruities of comp judging aside, I've tasted commercial cal commons and all I can taste is abused yeast. Running US05 will make beer but to call it a cal common is wrong. What commercial examples use a low attenuating ale yeast?


----------



## DanRayner (9/2/11)

bum said:


> The hideous incongruities of comp judging aside, I've tasted commercial cal commons and all I can taste is abused yeast. Running US05 will make beer but to call it a cal common is wrong. What commercial examples use a low attenuating ale yeast?



It sounds like you have some sort of subjective bias against US-05. Are you a hater, Bum? Were you bullied by a sachet of US-05 as a kid?   

Jokes aside. US-05, when used correctly, is clean and attenuative and when used in a beer that is loaded with the fresh pine-forest-floor of US Northern Brewer is not even noticeable and if brewers out there who are new to AG want to limit the amout of sensitive variables that have the potential to **** up on a brew day then I heartily recommend a good, solid, easy-to-use dry yeast for a beer where yeast character is meant to be low to none.

I realise there are many flaws in comps but it is a good way to see how well you targeted a style and a fanastic way to get feedback on your brewing (as long as the judges write more than a couple of words on your scoresheet of course!). 

With that caveat stated  I suggest that for this beer I used only US-05


----------



## bum (9/2/11)

I use US05 (and its liquid counterpart, though less often) quite regularly. It is a fine yeast. Anything you might have read in my post as being anti-US05 was actually me trying to present an impartial position on the yeast - I frankly think using US05 will make a more pleasant beer all round than cal common (I just don't believe you'd be making a steam beer).

As for your example, I'm sure it was a terrific beer and well deserving of the gong. However, while I can't find a specific description for 4.3 (current California Common category) under AABC guidelines the taxonomy and style/category tables found here suggest a lager yeast is expected to have been used. I realise that the information I have to hand may very well be incomplete and I'll be happy to be corrected if there is a more detailed description of 4.3 that allows the use of an ale yeast. I do know that BJCP (which is not the be-all-and-end-all) explicitly states a lager yeast should be used in their cal common category. I also understand that California Common was not its own category in 2007 and as such there may have been more wriggle room for yeast selection then and also that the document I'm referring to from the AABC website is dated 2009 and may have been amended in the interim.

As in my post above, I'm not interested in turning this into the old argument about subjective judging as that one is pretty fruitless.


----------



## DanRayner (9/2/11)

bum said:


> I use US05 (and its liquid counterpart, though less often) quite regularly. It is a fine yeast. Anything you might have read in my post as being anti-US05 was actually me trying to present an impartial position on the yeast - I frankly think using US05 will make a more pleasant beer all round than cal common (I just don't believe you'd be making a steam beer).
> 
> As for your example, I'm sure it was a terrific beer and well deserving of the gong. However, while I can't find a specific description for 4.3 (current California Common category) under AABC guidelines the taxonomy and style/category tables found here suggest a lager yeast is expected to have been used. I realise that the information I have to hand may very well be incomplete and I'll be happy to be corrected if there is a more detailed description of 4.3 that allows the use of an ale yeast. I do know that BJCP (which is not the be-all-and-end-all) explicitly states a lager yeast should be used in their cal common category. I also understand that California Common was not its own category in 2007 and as such there may have been more wriggle room for yeast selection then and also that the document I'm referring to from the AABC website is dated 2009 and may have been amended in the interim.
> 
> As in my post above, I'm not interested in turning this into the old argument about subjective judging as that one is pretty fruitless.



Fair calls all of them. And, no, let's not turn this into _that _age-old judging argument. You are right, a steam beer is put into the "hybrid" section cos it is supposed to be a lager brewed at ale temps and the BJCP does explicitly state that a lager yeast _should _be used but it is written as an advisory and I doubt that there has ever been a comp where a beer like this was disqualified or not judged because of the selection of the yeast. I'm just suggesting that there have been successful (and, in terms of hitting style, medals at comps are good indications of success) amateur steam beers brewed in the US and in Oz that didn't use that one particular California lager yeast strain and for ease of use and the probability of successfully resurrecting a stuck ferment US-05 might be a good choice.


----------



## bum (9/2/11)

DanRayner said:


> I doubt that there has ever been a comp where a beer like this was disqualified or not judged because of the selection of the yeast.


I'm not trying to promote some inflexible adherence to the guidelines here - an inflexible attitude to progress makes for a boring culture (as does completely eschewing tradition). For instance, many might take the attitude that a cal common brewed without US Northern Brewer is less of a steam beer - I reckon there should be some scope to play around with the woody/minty aspect and take it elsewhere. But my experience (drinking only, never brewed one as I find the style singularly distasteful) is that these beers have a very distinct yeast profile and I can't see how you'd nail it with US05.


----------



## DanRayner (9/2/11)

bum said:


> I'm not trying to promote some inflexible adherence to the guidelines here - an inflexible attitude to progress makes for a boring culture (as does completely eschewing tradition). For instance, many might take the attitude that a cal common brewed without US Northern Brewer is less of a steam beer - I reckon there should be some scope to play around with the woody/minty aspect and take it elsewhere. But my experience (drinking only, never brewed one as I find the style singularly distasteful) is that these beers have a very distinct yeast profile and I can't see how you'd nail it with US05.



Yup, I agree with these first few points - I have heard of some small northern California brewers using the tips of freshly cut pine needles at flameout/whirlpool to add a "piney" aroma - not sure if I agree with it but it is moving away from the traditional.

And for me there really is no discernable yeast character from the California lager yeast in a well-made steam beer; I've mde it with both US-05 and White Labs WLP810 and the differences from the yeast have been marginal - the piney-woody-minty hops and the caramel/toast crystal malt covers any flavours that I could find from the yeast which is meant to be clean - so other than being true to the process why worry too much about using this particular yeast strain if you haven't access to it or you're in a pinch with a stuck beer?

Out of curiosity, have you had any steam beers from the States? Like Anchor? Cos if your distaste for these beers is based on Australian commercial examples I can totally see why you dislike them so much. I have yet to try a commercial Aussie steam beer that is anything like the real thing from California. The ones I have tried from breweries in Melbourne, Adelaide and NSW (not mentioning names but there are only a few out there) have been too pale, cloudy, too light-flavoured or with nasty bottle yeast autolysis or a combination of these - and nothing like Anchor Steam, Sierra Nevada's Nothin In Common or Alpine's California Uncommon.

Next time you're in Canberra I be happy to help you change your opinion on the style with beer from Brauerei Rayner


----------



## bum (9/2/11)

Aside from Mountain Goat's offering (less said the better) I've only had Californian examples (while in California, so I can't blame beer miles for me not being into the beers). I've had Anchor and use it as my steam beer baseline but, I'll be honest, the beer didn't seem particularly clean to me - but obviously the subjectivity of beer tasting, etc. There's more than enough beer styles around for me to not like a few and still be perfectly happy with the rest.

I'd be only too happy to take you up on that beer if I do find myself up that way!


----------



## super_simian (9/2/11)

bum said:


> Aside from Mountain Goat's offering (less said the better)


Aside from whether you like it or not, that's not a Cal Common, just a brewers play on words. Ale done cool, not lager done warm.


----------



## bum (9/2/11)

Yeah, I know. I thought I was pretty clear that it wasn't being used in my assessment of the style. Apologies for any confusion.

Still a dud beer though - one of the remarkably few beers I've tipped that weren't infected.


----------



## Jimboley (9/2/11)

bigfridge said:


> Anchor fermets this yeast at 60 degrees Farenheight.



I just go off the BJCP guidlines and the Wyeast recommendations
15C or 60F in old world terms is pretty low -but I'm sure it would work.
I'm sure 22C works too :huh: 

http://www.wyeastlab.com/hb_yeaststrain_detail.cfm?ID=131


----------



## Pennywise (9/2/11)

18 is the sweet spot for me with 2112


----------



## Jimboley (9/2/11)

bevdawg said:


> I did make the starter on the fly... so I soaked it in my no rinse, drained it, but did not rinse... I thought this was OK with no rinse sanitizers? There was no pools or foam in the starter bottle though. Would that hurt the yeast?
> 
> Forgot to mention there was 200g of crystal in the grain bill as well



99/100 'no rinse' sanitizer is fine (sodium percarbonate) but if you made it just a bit too strong and didnt drain it all off- it will hamper the yeast from kicking off.
I drain everything really well or if I'm in a hurry (& can't be f'd waiting for stuff to dry) I'll give equipment a quick rinse off with filtered water just before using. 
Yes, this kinda defeats the idea behind 'rinse free' but as long as it you rinse with clean/serial water and use the equipment STRAIGHT away you'll be fine.

The only trouble I have ever had with US 05 is fermenting too high- Fermentis recommend 15C-24C, but if I ferment at 22C or more I get 'off' flavours/aromas. Try to keep it at a steady 18C.


----------



## bevdawg (9/2/11)

Hey, so on a side note... is US05 the same as 1056?


----------



## DanRayner (9/2/11)

bevdawg said:


> Hey, so on a side note... is US05 the same as 1056?



Yup


----------



## np1962 (9/2/11)

bevdawg said:


> Hey, so on a side note... is US05 the same as 1056?


Dan's 'Yup' is a rather simplistic answer.
US05 and 1056 and WLP001 are all very similar yeasts that are extremely difficult to tell apart.
Some brewers prefer US05 as it is a dry yeast that is easy to handle in the packet, some even say it flocs much quicker than the liquid yeasts.
Others have a preference for one or the other liquid yeast.
So not the same but "yup" probably close enough for the majority of brewers.
Cheers
Nige


----------

