Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Idle Science

The World's Strongest, Most Expensive Beer Served Inside a Squirrel 228

Posted by samzenpus
from the it-still-beats-toe-drinks dept.
If you have $765 burning a hole in your pocket, and a penchant for drinking alcohol out of a taxidermied animal, the good folks at BrewDog have just the drink for you. Their latest creation, called The End of History, is a 110 proof beer that comes packaged in a variety of small stuffed animals.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The World's Strongest, Most Expensive Beer Served Inside a Squirrel

Comments Filter:
  • by natehoy (1608657) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @01:52PM (#32993952) Journal

    So if you drink too much of this do you need to have a few cups of that coffee that can only be extracted after it's been crapped out by monkeys?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by rasper99 (247555)

      I think that would be a civit which is a cat like animal not a Monkey:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civet [wikipedia.org]

      Maybe you've taken exotic coffee to a new level.

  • One thing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ceraphis (1611217) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @01:52PM (#32993954)
    I just have to say, my vote for best article title ever. Felt like I was in some sort of slashdot dream seeing that pop up on the ol' RSS.
    • by Tyr_7BE (461429)

      I'm a fan of the punctuation possibilities myself.

      Is it the world's strongest, most expensive beer, served inside a squirrel? Or of all the beers served inside a squirrel, is this the strongest and most expensive? Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

  • by iamhassi (659463)
    ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww

    can i buy it without the squirrel?
  • Serious beer drinkers, YHBT.

  • Since there's freeze distillation (per here [metro.co.uk]), is it still a beer?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mmkkbb (816035)

      German Eisbocks are still considered beers, but at 55% alcohol, this is just really crappy infused whiskey.

    • Re:Is it a beer? (Score:4, Informative)

      by eln (21727) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @01:58PM (#32994060) Homepage
      Even if it's still technically beer, it isn't going to taste anything like beer. At beer's usually low alcohol content there are lots of subtle flavors that would get completely overwhelmed by the alcohol taste at 110 proof. You might as well just drink grain alcohol, it will probably taste about the same.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by stonewallred (1465497)
        Oh no dear low UID. The differences in flavor between a 55% alcohol beer or liquor and 190 proof grain alcohol is magnitudes apart. You can guzzle most 90-110 proof liquors straight from the bottle with no real problems, but you won't do it without major damage with everclear (190 proof). Difference between waving your finger quickly through a butane lighter flame and slamming it on a red hot stove burner.
    • > ...is it still a beer?

      No,

  • The actual link (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bryansix (761547) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @01:56PM (#32994030) Homepage
  • by Reilaos (1544173) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @01:57PM (#32994040) Homepage

    "Drunk off a skunk" is the closest I wish to come to "drunk as a skunk."

  • Nuts (Score:5, Funny)

    by sv_libertarian (1317837) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @01:57PM (#32994042) Journal
    My cat just drank my beer and chewed up the squirrel.
  • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @01:57PM (#32994050)
    With the heat and humidity here, that pelt would get wet and nasty pretty quick. It would make the recycling bin look pretty wild also.
  • by zero_out (1705074) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @01:57PM (#32994058)
    Any moment, PETA will respond to this with some hilarious condemnation of using the carcasses of dead animals in a way that is disrespectful to the formerly living creature.
    • On the other hand... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The fact that animals are being killed and stuffed not for consumption but to gaudily decorate a beer bottle, does kind of validate PETA's point, doesn't it. I don't support PETA the organization or their methods, but I do share their concern about how animals are used. It's one thing to raise an animal for consumption, and quite another to shoot and stuff a squirrel in order to use it as packaging.

      • Perhaps they have squirrel farms where they raise squirrels just for this purpose?

        Also, squirrels are a major pest in several parts of the world (England, various locales in the US, etc.)

        • From PETA's perspective, that's not any better.
        • by stonewallred (1465497) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @03:36PM (#32995530)
          Fuzzy tailed fucking tree rats. Damn things eat all my pecans and walnuts every year. Hate the little bastards. On;y thing they are good for is the stew pot where you can make some mighty fine gravy from their cooked carcasses.
          • You must live in Kentucky :p (it's a joke, I don't care where you live, could be Africa for all I care, just saying so you don't blow a gasket).

            • by Pharmboy (216950) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @06:57PM (#32998060) Journal

              I've had squirrel dumplings a few times, it is decent. Growing up, my dad (country boy turned retired military turned oil geologist) make sure we tried everything: rabbit, turtle, squirrel, and lots and lots of deer and fish. I still fish and clean and fry/bake my own. Don't hunt because I don't care for it, but there is something to the idea that if you are going to eat animals, you should be willing to actually obtain, clean and prepare them yourself at least once in a while. If someone can't handle that, then perhaps they should go vegetarian. Store bought meat is just hiring someone else to do your dirty work, which is fine as long as you don't pretend it wasn't an animal previously.

        • ...raise squirrels just for this purpose?

          Aighton Bailey Anally Raped with a Beer Bottle Squirrel Farm

          Witness the invisible hand of the free market allocating resources.

      • It's one thing to raise an animal for consumption, and quite another to shoot and stuff a squirrel in order to use it as packaging.

        Why are those different? Does the animal know the difference? If the animal did know the difference, would it really give a shit why someone is killing it?

        Also, lighten up Francis, the total number of animals killed here is 12 (7 stoats, 4 squirrels, and a rabbit), for the 12 bottles of beer they produced from this batch.

      • by demonbug (309515) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @02:52PM (#32994878) Journal

        According to the original article [brewdog.com], all of the squirrels and stoats used were roadkill (damn drunk drivers).

      • by AdamThor (995520)

        Their website claims the animals are all road kill. Not that you can't still be offended if you want, just FYI.

        http://www.brewdog.com/blog-article.php?id=341 [brewdog.com]

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Grey squirrels are disrespectful to wildlife in Scotland. Nice to see them put to good use.
    • by metlin (258108)

      Yes, because showing care and concern for other creatures that inhabit this planet is something to be mocked at.

      (Although, kudos to the folks for using already dead roadkill.)

    • I think PETA has a lot of morons, but I also have to say this does disturb me. Not so much in the ethical way (they used roadkill after all), but rather in the "what kind of morbid person would want a drink served in a dead animal" kind of way. Pretty similar reasons why I don't eat other creatures.

  • Absurdist elitist 'micro products' always pop up right when you need them.

    I think people could really use the lift provided by owning and consuming a $765 bottle of beer from furry organic coozie - with a tail and soft brown eyes.

  • by John Hasler (414242) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @02:02PM (#32994140) Homepage

    ...any such thing as 110 proof beer.

    • by Aboroth (1841308)
      As someone unfamiliar with this topic, why? I'm wondering what your definition of beer is, and if it has an arbitrary limit for alcohol content. Does the process for making beer necessarily limit the alcohol to around 10% max? I know for sure I've had beer with around that much alcohol and I never heard any beer connoisseurs complain that it wasn't actually beer.
      • by NotBornYesterday (1093817) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @02:32PM (#32994566) Journal
        Beer is a fermented beverage generally made from grain, perhaps some herbs/flowers/berries to flavor and/or preserve it, water, and yeast. Generally speaking, if you take a beverage like that and distil it, you've created a different kind of beverage; whiskey.
        • There are other methods to increase the alcohol content besides distillation. Freezing [wikipedia.org], for example, works very similar to distillation since alcohol freezes at a lower temperature than water. Get a freezer between these two temperatures and then remove the ice. The finished product is still considered beer.

          • The finished product is still considered beer.

            Only by the marketing types trying to sell it.

          • The finished product is still considered beer.

            I disagree. Whether it is distilled by fire or ice, concentrating the alcohol of a fermented beverage changes the nature of it. Cognac comes from fermented grapes, but it is not wine, it is a liqueur. I wonder what the BATF thinks about freeze-distillation?

        • The wort is still fermented to create beer; they're playing with it further it after it's been fully fermented. In particular, as others have mentioned, these guys (as well as other breweries) are using a process referred to as the Eisbock method. It's thought of as a distillation, although it isn't technically a distillation.

          With whiskey distillation, the grain mash simply yields primarily alcohol (at least 95%) - that's why the end product of the distillation is clear and free of the majority of congen
          • by Braino420 (896819)

            The wort is still fermented to create beer; they're playing with it further it after it's been fully fermented.

            When you make whiskey, the grain is also fermented. It's still not called mash when you drink it.

            It's thought of as a distillation, although it isn't technically a distillation.

            It is thought of as distillation because IT IS distillation, atleast by any definition of distillation that I know of.

            These are all just nitpicks; it really doesn't matter in the end. There just isn't a technical reaso

            • When you make whiskey, the grain is also fermented. It's still not called mash when you drink it.

              Correct, whiskey is made from fermented grain mash - that's how they distill the alcohol *off*. The alcohol they collect from *off* the mash is what is retained and used - so no, the alcohol could not be called mash. The originating mash is discarded with whiskey; with the beer it is not.

              It is thought of as distillation because IT IS distillation, atleast by any definition of distillation that I know of.

              Fractional Freezing [wikipedia.org] differs from true distillation in that the substance removed is 'poorer' than what it is leaving. With true distillation, the substance removed is 'greater' than what it is leaving. True distillatio

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by bm_luethke (253362)

        What is exactly beer will differe for regions - a few have "purity laws": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinheitsgebot [wikipedia.org]

        However that doesn't include things like wheat beers which are obviously still beer, however they all are basically fermented barely, hops, and water - wheat, rice, fruits, vegetables, and other flavoring can be added (and make no mistake with them - a "fruit" beer can be VERY heavy, bitter, and alcoholic. There is no reason why one can not make a right tasty raspberry imperial stout and many

        • by BKX (5066)

          There is another way to raise alcohol levels though. It's done to make ice wine (and a few beers, including the one in question, although not usually to the degree for the squirrel monstrosity). It's called freeze distillation generally, but it's not at all like distillation in the conventional sense. Basically, either before or after brewing (before brewing gives you a very sweet product, after gives you tons of alcohol) you lower the temperature of the liquid down low enough (but not too low) so that only

          • There is another way to raise alcohol levels though. It's done to make ice wine (and a few beers, including the one in question, although not usually to the degree for the squirrel monstrosity). It's called freeze distillation generally, but it's not at all like distillation in the conventional sense.

            It's still distillation and the result, though perhaps tasty, is not beer.

      • As someone unfamiliar with this topic, why? I'm wondering what your definition of beer is, and if it has an arbitrary limit for alcohol content. Does the process for making beer necessarily limit the alcohol to around 10% max?

        Yes.

        • by Aboroth (1841308)
          Thanks for being so descriptive.
          What about the freezing technique another poster talks about, which increases alcohol content of the beer without distillation?
          • by Shagg (99693)

            You're primarily limited by the alcohol tolerance of the strain of yeast that you select to do the fermentation. With some very special handling, I've seen breweries get this up to 20%, but nowhere close to 55%.

            The freezing technique they use is called "freeze distillation". Yes, it is a form of distillation, which means that technically this is not a beer anymore, but something else. They can call it whatever they want though, even if it is not correct.

    • Nonsense. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Chelmet (1273754)
      Of course there could. But it would have to be 62.9% alcohol. The beer in the article, at 55% alcohol, is 96.25% proof, not the 110 quoted.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by sssssss27 (1117705)
        It depends on the country. In the United States alcoholic proof is double the alcohol by volume.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Chelmet (1273754)

          Ah. It being a Scottish beer, brewed not far from me in fact, I was using the British notation - I didn't realise there were any others.

          If you read on where the 'proof' system came from, you'll quickly see that the american one is, in fact, nonsense, but I suppose that that's a debate for another day.

      • 50% alcohol = 100 proof

      • by adonoman (624929)
        American or European proof?
    • by Shagg (99693)

      There isn't. They're using freeze distillation. Once you switch from "brewing" to "distilling", it's not really beer anymore.

      They can call it anything they want on the label, but you're right.

  • Two of macho men's favorite pastimes rolled into one. Getting hammered and making out with small woodland creatures. Hawt.

  • Skunk? (Score:2, Interesting)

    If they go bad will the squirrels turn into Skunks?
  • Seriously, who uses that kind of meaningless notation anymore?

    • by cosm (1072588)
      Meaningless is in the eye of the beholder, you obviously knew that the 'proof' rating divided by 2 gives the percentage of alcohol by volume, so in essence it has meaning. Not to mention, from a marketing standpoint, large numbers sound better, not to mention, average Joe shuts down when they even hear the word percent. What sounds better:

      "GhettoSip, the 65 proof thug companion."

      or

      "GhettoSip, the 32.5% alcohol by volume thug companion."
    • by swanzilla (1458281) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @02:15PM (#32994320) Homepage

      Seriously, who uses that kind of meaningless notation anymore?

      Jack, Jim, Jose, et al

    • by cosm (1072588)

      Seriously, who uses that kind of meaningless notation anymore?

      You must not be an alcoholic. When I see 110 proof on the label, my mind doesn't go blank, it screams "OPPORTUNITY ABOUND MATEY". Only after a couple, does it become meaningless. Not to mention most of the English language, as well.

    • by rotide (1015173)
      It's both 55% and 110 proof. Just because you don't "like" the unit of measurement doesn't mean that every manufacturer of alcohol must all of a sudden stop using the unit. I would also submit that those who purchase the $765 beer probably know what "proof" means. You, on the other hand, probably should be finding other hobbies to spend your cash on, alcohol doesn't appear to be something you like and/or know much about.
  • by nweaver (113078) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @02:07PM (#32994224) Homepage

    The reason the alcohol content is so high is not that its brewed, but that its freeze-distilled: by freezing the water out (the alcohol has a lower freezing point).

    So calling it beer is really BS: its really a freeze-distilled whiskey.

    • The reason the alcohol content is so high is not that its brewed, but that its freeze-distilled: by freezing the water out (the alcohol has a lower freezing point).

      So calling it beer is really BS: its really a freeze-distilled whiskey.

      Incorrect. Beer is brewed with the methods of mashing, hopping (optional), and fermenting. Whiskey is similar in how the mashing and fermenting is done. However, that is where the similarity stops. Look at the difference:

      Whiskey: The fermented whiskey mash is distilled - the alcohol is evaporated off the mash. The result is a clear, at least 95% alcohol solution which is then mixed with water (decreasing alcohol percentage) and stored in barrels along with any other additives. The originating whiske

  • Hangover? (Score:5, Funny)

    by lazlo (15906) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @02:19PM (#32994380) Homepage

    So I'm guessing in this case, the cure for a hangover would be the hair of the squirrel that bit you?

  • Why do they need to include the stuffed animals. Just drink enough of this beer, and you will see all sorts of things without having to pay the outrageous price.

    And, what do you do with all the embalmed animals once you have drained them? You're drunk, there's a bunch of other drunk guys with you, there's a pile of fuzzy dead animals laying around. It all sounds like a perfect setting for something that's going to show up on COPS.

    • by demonbug (309515)

      Why do they need to include the stuffed animals. Just drink enough of this beer, and you will see all sorts of things without having to pay the outrageous price.

      And, what do you do with all the embalmed animals once you have drained them? You're drunk, there's a bunch of other drunk guys with you, there's a pile of fuzzy dead animals laying around. It all sounds like a perfect setting for something that's going to show up on COPS.

      Well, I think we all know what Richard Gere would do...

  • For $800, they should have roboticized the squirrel and made it do the "Hamster Dance"!
    • For $800, they should have roboticized the squirrel and made it do the "Hamster Dance"!

      It's actually already built in: Drink a few and the squirrels will start dancing on their own.

  • ...would love to see what his writing staff does with this!

  • In that video I see furries getting killed by huge sausages.

    Sorry what?

  • ...when you pry it from my cold, dead squirrel.
  • as if that wasnt sick enough, they expect you to drink expensive bear from it .... i dont know which is sicker.

Maternity pay? Now every Tom, Dick and Harry will get pregnant. -- Malcolm Smith

Working...