I had some Conan yeast I harvested from a starter that was in the fridge for 9 months. I made a starter, then a 1 gal batch and then used the slurry in the HT clone recipe on here and it came out great. And 81% attenuation.
Conan Yeast Experiences
- Thread starter terrapinj
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
MeanDeuce
Well-Known Member
I made a second step last night and its bubbling away today so it must be alive. We'll see how it does tonight when I pitch it into 5 gal of pale ale.
davidgaines
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2013
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 8
Yeah, but their new packaging was supposed to be released back in October of last year. Maybe they'll have the new packaging and conan release coincide - that'd be nice!
Edit:
Experimental Ale WLP095 was the strain indicated to be Conan. And I sampled it against WLP001 (not WLP090 as I said previously).
And, from the looks of it, all white labs has been focusing on with this strain is porters and browns. Maybe they're on to something
Glad I read this, I'm going to try Conan in my porter recipe for an upcoming competition!
BrewCityBaller
Well-Known Member
I have a Citra IPA going right now and this is the fermentation schedule I'm using:
First 24 hours: Rising from 65* to 68*
Day 2-Day 7: 68*
Day 8-Day 19: 70*
Day 20: 34* cold crash
I will report back with how it goes, currently on Day 6.
Edit: Day 13 and my Gravity has gone from 1.064 down to 1.011 and is tasting delicious!
Poor Yeast Bay, but it's perfect irony!! Was hunting for conan and was able to order White Labs 095 Burlington yeast through my lhbs. Any reviews on how WL095 compares to Yeast Bay, Omega, Giga, etc?
I've got a Hop Ranch clone I used a 5th gen Yeast Bay VT Ale yeast in. It's behavior on this recipe is very different than my previous DIPAs I've brewed with this yeast. I pitched a stepped up starter into my 1.079 OG wort. My typical ferm profile is to drop temp to 62F once fermentation starts and raise to 68F over 2 days where it sits for next 5 days I then raise it to 72F for next 7 days for yeast cleanup and dry hopping. For this recipe initial fermentation went strong for about 3 days when it appeared to stall. As temps began to ramp up to 72 airlock started bubbling at a rate of one bubble per sec. I decided to give it another week before dry hopping. On days 12 and 14 I check gravity and it was holding steady at 1.024. Higher than expected but oh well. I dry hopped on day 14. I checked gravity tonight (day 20) and I'm reading 1.015 and still have airlock activity at a bubble rate of one every 2 seconds! This generation of Conan is going to produce a rather dry beer. I'm considering doing an extra round of dry hopping at end of week 3.
From the WL description of 095, I don't think that it's Conan. 1) The Alchemist is not in Burlington. 2) I can't imagine the agreement between TYB and WL would allow WL to directly compete with the same strain.
My best guess is that 095 is the Magic Hat strain. When I mentioned to an industry-savvy person that I thought it was probably the Magic Hat strain he said "I think their strain produces a lot of diacetyl." That's remarkable to me because he hadn't read the description of 095, which specifically mentions that it is prone to diacetyl production. I am not aware of Conan being a big diacetyl producer.
I wouldn't think #1 is a completely valid point since the 20 minute ride to Waterbury's negligible. Otherwise......damnit!!! Thats terrible news if you're correct. I def don't want rich buttery hoppyness! The 095 temp range of 67-70 is tiny & medium flocc is def off from conanhaze
Given the description, I can't imagine WLP095 is Conan. Without getting into specifics, no, White Labs will not sell my strains under their WLP label, we will always use a co-branded label for my products with The Yeast Bay logo on the label front face with a "produced by" section for the White Labs information. But that is limited to the specific cell lines I bank with them for The Yeast Bay (i.e. cell stocks I send them). They are of course free to isolate, characterize and sell anything they want from any source under their label.
Thanks for chiming in! I hope WL starts doing tYB yeasts in the new Asheville facility so I can have convenient access.
ultravista
Well-Known Member
I have a healthy Vermont Ale (Yeast Bay) yeast cake from a recent Heady Topper batch.
Looking for feedback on brewing a Pliny clone w/the Vermont Ale yeast vs. the standard strain of Chico/WLP001.
Looking for feedback on brewing a Pliny clone w/the Vermont Ale yeast vs. the standard strain of Chico/WLP001.
I have done both..
My experiences:
Conan - will leave the beer much more hazy and lend a bit more of the creamyness/smoothness to the beer. Also put a bit of "peachyness" to the beer which is pleasant. Ferment at 66 for the first few days and let it raise(ambient) to 72 for the best results.
Chico/01 - Will attenuate a bit steadier and better than Conan on most days, less change of stalling out fermentation wise which means can stay at 66 for the entire fermentation cycle with no issues w/stalling out. Makes a "cleaner" visual beer from my experience (cold crashing aside) but is missing that "peachyness" that I get when using Conan.
I tend to enjoy using Conan over Chico for my IPAs and hoppier than usual Pale Ales especially since I have moved to only using hopshots for the FWH bittering only and late pellet hop additions for hopstands at 170deg and 140deg which blend with Conan to make an awesome IPA or Pale Ale.
YMMV.
stpug
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,808
- Reaction score
- 767
Yeah, but their new packaging was supposed to be released back in October of last year. Maybe they'll have the new packaging and conan release coincide - that'd be nice!
Edit:
Experimental Ale WLP095 was the strain indicated to be Conan. And I sampled it against WLP001 (not WLP090 as I said previously).
And, from the looks of it, all white labs has been focusing on with this strain is porters and browns. Maybe they're on to something
Well, there you go. It took almost two years but it has finally been released:
https://www.whitelabs.com/yeast/wlp095-burlington-ale-yeast
word on the street is that this isn't conan. diacetyl has never been a problem with conan.
it's probably magic hat's yeast.
stpug
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,808
- Reaction score
- 767
That's interesting. When I at White Labs, I was specifically told by the "guy behind the bar" that it was conan yeast, but that doesn't mean he was correct. It behaves like conan from the taste and [lack of] flocculation, but again that doesn't mean a whole lot either.
A comparative brew between TYB's Vermont Ale and WLP095 might prove informative, or not.
Hmmm... I wonder if White Labs would be willing to clear this up for us or if they prefer to be tight-lipped about it.
Edit: In regards to diacetyl, when has that ever been a lingering issue for an ale fermented in the upper 60s? All yeast strains produce it, but it blows and cleans shortly following completion of fermentation, particularly with lower floccing strains (WLP095 is only a med floccer).
I agree. magic hat is from Burlington VT. The alchemist is in waterbury, 30min away. Plus, the stats they give don't seem to match up well either. Conan attenuates higher and is a very poor flocculator
Could be why temp range is so small (67-70)? Fwiw I just used omega Conan & it flocc'd crystal clear.
stpug
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,808
- Reaction score
- 767
It'll be interesting to see if we can get any "horses mouth" validation one way or another on this strain. I suspect that the naming of the strain is simply a case of not wanting to "step on others toes" situation coupled with the fact that they've almost never pin-pointed a brewery by strain because of being held to that breweries characteristics.
"Ideal range" is precisely that, the ideal range - not the actual range it can handle.
I suppose the proof will be when one uses the strain and declares it a good match to conan based on experience. Magic hat certainly doesn't have an overly unique yeast character like VPB1188 is known for producing.
However it pans out, it's always a welcome to get another new strain released by an excellent yeast lab. Now to go grab a vial from my LHBS if they have any.
stpug
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,808
- Reaction score
- 767
I contacted White Labs about the origins of WLP095 being 'Conan'. I mentioned Vermont Pub and Brewery and The Alchemist in my email, but never referenced any specific beer. The reply was from the lab manager (with permission to repost) and was very true-to-form for "White Labs" (which I can appreciate):
No further ahead or behind than a minute ago, but we can certainly speculate
I contacted White Labs about the origins of WLP095 being 'Conan'. I mentioned Vermont Pub and Brewery and The Alchemist in my email, but never referenced any specific beer. The reply was from the lab manager (with permission to repost) and was very true-to-form for "White Labs" (which I can appreciate):
No further ahead or behind than a minute ago, but we can certainly speculate
Hmm...yeah certainly makes it sound like Conan. But then why would they call it Burlington? Plus, I can definitely see it making sense that they would want us homebrewers spreading the rumor/truth that it is this popular and sought after yeast
stpug
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,808
- Reaction score
- 767
I think one thing is for certain.... they'll create a buzz around that strain. People will spend time (and money) making the argument for and against it originating from the ever-popular Conan strain. Whether it is or isn't a derivative of VPB1188, it will most certainly be different because "this kid was raised in a different household by different parents with different rules and expectations" and that's enough to make it different (just like every other strain of conan out on the market today). Some are more/less similar to the classic based on character imparted by the lab.
Unfortunately, I'm a long way out before using this strain. I've got plenty of ideas for this year and a comparative differentiation between can-harvested conan and WLP095 couldn't find a spot for quite a while. I DO look forward to others findings as the year moves forward though.
OT: I just kegged a gin-barrel aged rye saison that @m00ps would probably find some appreciation for. A smidge too barrel characterful but quite good nonetheless.
you dont know me!
stpug
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,808
- Reaction score
- 767
My apologies; I didn't mean to offend. I don't know you.
I was always under the impression that Magic Hat was a whitbread brewery.
I would be curious to try the WL offering. My experience with the East Coast Yeast version has not been good (significant under-attenuation). I have had better luck with the Yeast Bay version and that harvested from HT.
I would be curious to try the WL offering. My experience with the East Coast Yeast version has not been good (significant under-attenuation). I have had better luck with the Yeast Bay version and that harvested from HT.
I thought Greg Noonan of Burlington was the originator?
http://www.vermontbrewery.com/history
"You’re not going to find a successful brewer in the country that doesn’t have a dog-eared copy of this book,” says John Kimmich,Noonan’s protégé and co-owner of The Alchemist Pub & Brewery in Waterbury."
slight aside, but i've now user conan 3 times, from different yeast vendors, and it has under-attenuated for me each time. i believe the issue is that the yeast doesn't do well in its first generation. my working assumption is that the yeast needs hops and stress to toughen up. if/when i use conan again, i'm going to make a high-gravity starter (1.060?) that is hopped to 50-60 IBUs.
In my experience I have had attenuation problems trying to pitch original pitch/starter into 1.055+ beers with this yeast too.
I always run mine through a blonde ale (1.040) first generation. low hops, low gravity. Finishes out around 1.010-1.011. I harvest that yeast in 6 jars and then use them for future beers. I always use 1 jar for another blonde and another harvest of 6 jars.
I pitch each jar into a 1L starter 18 hours before brewing and pitch the whole thing - this seems to work very well and I almost always hit 1.011-1.012. This works better than building up a starter, fermenting it out, crashing and decanting it. Pitching the active starter seems to be a better strategy in my experience.
^ problem for me is that i don't brew nearly as often as i would like to - kids, house, work, etc. so dedicating a rare brew day to making a precursor (small blond) to what i actually want (a full-strength IPA) isn't appealing to me. a few years ago when i was brewing several times a month a small blond would have been my strategy.
my next-best option, IMO, is to make a "rougher" starter. i'll be sure to post back here when i next do this.
alternately, i might let conan go for 48 hours then add some active Chico or other attenuative yeast.
my next-best option, IMO, is to make a "rougher" starter. i'll be sure to post back here when i next do this.
alternately, i might let conan go for 48 hours then add some active Chico or other attenuative yeast.
I just bottled my first beer using what I gather is the Conan strain, it's the omega oyl-052 strain bought from farmhouse. Made a starter for my 1.068 IPA and poured off a little into a 12oz jar for later use. Anyway, kicked off less than 12 hrs later and got my fg to 1.010 fermented between 66-68 deg tops during peak fermentation. It fermented pretty vigorously as I had krausen right up to the neck of the carboy, it's 5.5 gal into a 6.5 gal glass carboy. Bottled today and I'm surprised I didn't really get the whole peach thing people talk about, but I like to really hop my IPAs I used 12oz in my batch so 8+ in boil and hopstand and 4oz dryhop. I cold crashed for 36hrs and the beer was hazy but I could still see the shadow of my finger through the small glass I tasted the sample from. Attenuation was real good for this being the first use of this so that's nice, looking forward to seeing if I can't pick out the yeast a little more once it carbs in the bottles.
I have also used it multiple times from at least 3 different vendors & had a mixed bag of high to low attenuation. Seems unlikely that it needs stress to toughen it up. I think temperature is the key. Keep cool ~63-66F through high Krausen & let the temp rise to ~68-72F once fermentation has started slowing. Never let the temp fall, like after high Krausen when the heat from active fermentation falls and your ferm fridge catches up to your setpoint...
Chrisbrewbeers
Well-Known Member
I can't understand attenuation problems with it. I have used maybe 10 times from 2 different labs and never over 1.010. Then again I wind up mashing longer because sparge water usually isn't ready.... And mash out never happened.
Anyone ever had conan get up 71-72 during peak fermentation (day2) and if so how did it turn out? I've used it several times now and never had it create this much heat overnight. It was 66 at 10 last night and 71.5 at 8 this morning. Also as an expriment I pitched at .65mil/ml/deg plato. Maybe this has something to do with the different ferm characteristics this time.
