Question about Steam Beer

Ha!

I was expecting that response. I did a bit if web surfing in anticipation of this topic but I have not come up with anything 'definitive' yet.

What I can state with a high level of certitude is that the protein content of 2-row barley (which is what is grown in Britain) has historically had a lower protein (nitrogen) content than 6-row barley.

Below is some discussion by John Palmer in How to Brew:

“The diastatic power of a particular malt will vary with the type of barley it is made from. There are two basic varieties of barley, two row and six row - referring to the arrangement of the kernels around the shaft. Two row barley is the generally preferred variety, having a bit higher yield per pound, lower protein levels, and claiming a more refined flavor than six row. However, six row has a little higher diastatic power than two row. Historically, the higher protein level of six row barley (which can produce a very heavy bodied beer) drove brewers to thin the wort with unmalted grains like corn and rice. Brewers were able to take advantage of six row barley's higher diastatic power to achieve full conversion of the mash in spite of the non-enzymatic starch sources (adjuncts).”

If I find any ‘good’ information on what were the typical TN values for British Malt of the 19th Century I will post it.

I have no reason to believe that 2-row barley of the 19th Century had significantly higher protein values than present day British Malt but I shall continue to research this.

Ron (@patto1ro ), do you have typical TN values for British malt of the 19th century?

Cheers!

 

I put it on my misc. Anchor info page - scroll down about 1/3 of the way. A poor copy but readable, dating from the short period that Anchor was closed by owner Joe Allen - they reopened in late 1960, after Larry Steese took over the brewery.

 

I have not found 19th century British Malt analysis information (yet) but:

From the article: “The Decline of Two-Rowed Barleys in the United States”, American Brewers’ Review, August, 1915.

“You can get from the London Brewers’ Journal; it published their consumption of hops, barley, etc. once each year.

They import about 40,000,000 bushels of barley, of which all is 6-row barley, except what they import from the Western European countries. At a rough guess we would say that over three-fourths of England’s barley imports is of 6-rowed barley and that practically all of England’s home production is 2-rowed.

Of the 40,000,000 bushels of barley that England imports, we would say that one-third to one-half is used for feed purposes, and that English brewers use on average about half 2 and 6-rowed barley in making their beers.

We are informed and believe that the English brewers require 6-rowed barley for the two principle reasons, namely filtration and color. Both of these are very important considerations.

The pale ale brewers believe that even the brightest 2-row barleys give ales a grayish color, while the brightest 6-rowed barleys give light beers the very best color and, as a result, those brewers that aim at the brightest beers use the most 6-rowed barleys; and as, generally speaking, California grows the brightest 6-row barley, those English brewers that aim at the brightest beers come to California every year for the brightest 6-rowed barleys and they often pay much more for such barleys right in California than the finest Middle West barleys will fetch in Chicago and New York.”

WOW! Lots of interesting information there!!

· I had no idea that British beers of that timeframe used so much 6-row malt in their grist. It would appear that some brewers who greatly valued good color might have used majority of 6-row in the grist.

· California grew the “brightest” 6-row barley

· British brewers were willing to pay a ‘premium’ for California 6-row barley

There seems to be a phenomenon of that timeframe of aesthetics of beer. The British brewers sought the brightest 6-rowed barley to create pale ales of good color. During this timeframe US brewers were using adjuncts to create beers that did not have chill haze.

Given that it appears that 6-row was a significant portion of the grain bill maybe those brewers also utilized some adjunct (flaked maize) to manage the potential haze issues that high protein 6-row barley could bring to the beer? I am uncertain how the math goes but if you assume:

· British 2-row malt has 10% protein

· American 6-row has 14% protein

· A 50/50 mix of the two barleys

· The average protein amount of the barleys is 12%?

If the above is reasonable then 12% is where chill haze from protein may be an issue. Perhaps a small portion (e.g., 5-10%) of flaked maize would be beneficial here?

Cheers!

 

I was thinking it was from over 100 years ago when both IPA's and Steam Beer were very different than they are today.

 

Well as I remember it (cloudy and bitter and it varied from batch to batch) It certainly could have been a dead ringer for the IPA's of the time but I don't remember having any IPAs available then, Liberty came around in I believe 1975 or so and completely changed the game, then Sierra Nevada Pale which at that time was considered very hoppy. It wasn't very long after 1972 that I believe Maytag got the pasteurization and filtering figured out and it became what it is today. clear and consistent.

 

And there is nothing wrong with clear and consistent.

 

My mistake on this one - since I was getting the numbers from a larger list of stats rather than go back to the original source - the notation for corn read "Corn or cerealine." in that 1895-6 chart.

Also, I think it should be noted that San Francisco in the period of 1890 > Prohibition was not an isolated backwater as far as their brewing industry went, which is sometimes suggested because of the "primitive" nature of the steam beer origin and process, and its continued popularity there even after lager brewing became possible with mechanical refrigeration.

By 1890 San Francisco was something like the 10th largest beer market in the US, larger than traditional eastern brewing cities like Albany, Rochester, Cleveland and Detroit. In that period SF had 20 - 30 working breweries, many relatively large and brewing both steam beer and lager beer, along with numerous small steam breweries in the city and surrounding northern CA region. Well-known California lager brewers which survived into the Repeal era, Grace Bros., Golden West, Calif. Brewing Assoc. [Acme] and Wieland were all still brewing steam beer as well as lager styles and, sometimes porter, as well in 1918.

As with most major brewing areas, while some brewers were also still doing their own malting on site, there were also 5 independent malt houses based in SF, and one could easily speculate that there were also a number of brewing supply houses that serviced SF breweries and the entire west coast.

I should have written "many" not "most" here - since those sorts of stats aren't available and, upon reviewing my files, in trying to remember an article I confused the figure of "15-30%" of kraeusen added to the kegs with the typical percentage of adjunct.

* Oops - should have read the entire thread before replying - I see @Crusader covered cerealine above.

​

 

From the article: Horace T. Brown, “The Nitrogen Question in Brewing, Part II”, Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Vol. 15 Issue 2, March-April, 1909

“hence it can be shown that the ratios of assimilable nitrogen in two similar worts made from average English and Californian malts respectively would be about 100 to 80…”

Does anybody know what the term “assimilable nitrogen” mean? How does it correlate to the parameters that are found on a malt Certificate of Analysis sheet (e.g., Total Protein, Soluble Protein, S/T Ratio, FAN, etc.).

Cheers!

Edit: @Peter_Wolfe , are you familiar with the term "assimilable nitrogen"? What does it mean?

 

More on steam beer adjunct usage, thanks to a link from @Crusader for a Google Books - Sweden copy of American Brewers Review from 1903.

Entire article is up temporarily at my site - https://sites.google.com/site/jesskidden/steam-brewing-process - and, since it also mentions that steam beer had a "sharp taste" and a "similar" effect on the stomach as weissbeer (last paragraph), may be the article @Hodgson mentioned in the OP.

 

Wow! Great information here. Now this is what I like about BA. Great information shared civilly. Great conversation all and thanks for taking time to post! I learned quite a bit!

 

@jesskidden and @Crusader, lots of great information in that 1903 article!

· A variety of grain bills depending on the brewery: all malt, malt and flaked maize, and some breweries use rice or grits.

· About ¾ lbs. of hops per barrel

· “Steam beer is moderately clear…”

· “…generally from 40-60 lbs. of pressure upon the package…”

· “Steam beer is usually a dark amber color and has a sharp taste similar to weissbeer. It has an effect similar to weissbeer on the stomach owing to the great amount of carbonic acid it contains.”

A few comments:

Apperance

The article used the descriptor of “moderately clear”. There was no mention of filtering or fining of the finished beer so it makes sense to me that the beer would be “moderately clear”, particularly for the case of an all malt Steam Beer.

Hopping Rates

The hopping rate of ¾ lbs. per barrel is rather modest. According to Wahl & Henius a ‘typical’ AAL of circa 1900 used about 1 lb. of hops per barrel (with bottled AAL beers typically hopped with a higher hoping rate).

Carbonation

Contemporary lagers are carbonated at a level of 2.2 – 2.6 volumes of CO2. The level in terms of pounds (psi) is a function of temperature. If we assume a serving temperature of 55 °F the higher end of 2.6 volumes equates to 21 psi. Needless to say but the carbonation level of 40 – 60 lbs. is much higher than this value (2-3 times higher). There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a beer carbonated at 40-60 lbs. will be extremely carbonated with a substantial carbonic acid ‘bite’ to it.

There are a number of ‘stories’ on where the name of Steam Beer came from. One of those stories is: “…created a highly carbonated brew and when a new barrel was tapped it caused a hiss or spray when opened.” Given the information in this article I personally subscribe to the notion that they called it Steam Beer because of the “hiss or spray” upon tapping a barrel of this beer.

Cheers!

 

While it is not explicitly labeled/advertised as such, Anchor California Lager is likely the closest commercial representation of a Steam Beer of circa 1900.

It makes business sense for Anchor to not make reference to the ‘Steam Beer aspect’ of their California Lager since they have a beer labeled as Steam Beer. The Anchor Steam Beer is brewed using:

· Blend of 2-Row Pale & Caramel malts

· Northern Brewer hops

Northern Brewer hops were bred in 1934 and needless to say would not have been used to brew a Steam Beer of circa 1900.

There is a great story on the neck label of Anchor California Lager beer:

“Anchor Steam's® roots go back to the Gold Rush, long before icehouses and modern refrigeration made traditional lagers a viable California option. In 1876, thanks to an ice pond in the mountains and a belief that anything is possible in the Golden State, a little brewery named Boca created California's first genuine lager. Anchor California Lager® is our re-creation of this historic beer.

Made in San Francisco with two-row California barley, Cluster hops (the premier hop in 19th-century California), and our own lager yeast, this all-malt brew is kräusened and lagered in our cellars. Its golden color, distinctive aroma, creamy head, balanced depth of flavor, and smooth finish make Anchor California Lager® a delicious celebration of California’s unique brewing heritage.”

Obviously the golden color of California Lager is not consistent with a Steam Beer, the carbonation level of 2.x volumes of CO2 is much less than the draft Steam Beer of circa 1900, plus it was brewed with 2-row vs. 6-row but I would guess that otherwise it is a fairly close match.

Cheers!

P.S. You can read more about Anchor California Lager here: http://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/anchor-california-lager-–-a-tasty-historic-american-lager.102801/

 

Very interesting article. So I guess nowadays it would be pretty rare to find a beer made with two row barley? Since I'm not a home brewer, is two row barley even available in the US?
So off to Google and I find this https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/zymurgy/zymurgy-extra-2-row-vs-6-row-barley/

 

Wow, so that got me wondering about the Barley in Anchor's Steam Beer. Yep, Two Row. Interesting

 

The 1915 Pacific Rural Press article is consistent with the American Brewers’ Review article. Below is an extract from the Pacific Rural Press article:

“…we gave the evidence of H. E. Clemens Horst on that matter. Mr. Horst farther explains why the six-rowed barley of California is preferred for export, in these words which Dr. Wahl quotes in his paper: "The fact is that England grows only or practically only two-rowed barley, but they find that it is advantageous to them to use six-rowed barley along with the two-rowed barley and all of the barley that they import from the Pacific Coast and all the barley that they import from some other countries is six-rowed barley and they prefer to import six-rowed barley than to import two-rowed barley. In other words, two-rowed barley that they grow at home answers their purpose but they need six-rowed barley and this they import."

This is very important as showing that California growers are warranted in growing six-rowed barley not only because it is better from a grower's point of view but because it is the type of barley that' is required in the export trade.”

Cheers!