| Author |
Message |
    
Sean Richens
Intermediate Member
Username: Sean
Post Number: 324
Registered: 04-2001
Posted From: 142.161.111.224
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 01:23 am: | 
|
This is the long-awaited final report! The hydrometer jar tasting comments are found at interim report.
The split batch was a generic squeeze-it-all-in recipe where I used about 25% malt syrup to get 38 Litres from a system that normally produces only 23 L (and that's with a 17 L boil, to be honest).
Briefly:
250 g Wheat Malt
450 g Honey Malt
900 g Munich 9deg L
450 g Cara-Pils
3.6 kg IMC Canada 2-row
Mashed in at 154F and rested overnight
2 kg pale malt syrup
30 g Mt. Hood pellets 4.1% (FWH)
30 g Liberty pellets 4.0% (FWH)
60 g Northern Brewer pellets 7.3% (45 min)
1 Whirlfloc tablet (15 min)
Chilled immediately at end of boil
Diluted to 42 L (OG 11 degrees Plato)
Here I split the batch, 20 L immediately to primary, 20 L was left 5 hours to separate trub. A secondary fermenter deposit of Wyeast 2278 was split between the two primary pails.
Primary 14 days (a bit slow) 50 F
Secondary 7 weeks 50-55 F
"wet hopped" each 19 L with:
15 g Mt. Hood pellets
15 g Libery pellets
steeped 2 min. in boiling water before adding,
also added 4 grams bentonite to each
Bottle primed 2 weeks later FG 2.5 Plato.
Results:
The attenuation was slower in the batch fermented "on trub", but both finished the same. After secondary, the "on trub" batch tasted creamier, with a more married blend of hops and malt. Without trub, the different flavour notes were more distinct.
About 4 months after my pitching date I presented the beers to the executive meeting of the Winnipeg Brew Bombers, and, after agreeing that there was not a big difference between the two beers, they were distinguishable. The batch with trub separation was unanimously preferred, the other was described as more "homebrew-tasting", with faint soapy or yeasty notes which wouldn't have been noticed without the comparison. I still describe the difference as being in how the hops and malt marry. The trub separation gives a slight extra cleanliness of flavour which is in the spirit of Pilsner brewing. It must be kept in mind, however, that trub separation is my normal practice and therefore my recipe evolution might reflect that - in other words, if you normally don't separate trub, you might not like the effect it has on your old reliable recipe.
The same week bottles were shipped to the Aurora Brewing Challenge of the Edmonton Homebrewers' Guild. The scores were 30.0 without trub separation, 30.5 with trub separation.
Comparing comments from the same judges, the differences were:
Judge 1 (BJCP Recognized)
A floral hop note in the separated batch
Clarity commented on in the separated batch
Hops dominate, malt missing in the separated batch, nicer balance in the non-separated batch
Creamy then clean flavour in non-separated batch
Judge 2 (BJCP Certified):
Hop aroma spicy in separated batch, flowery in non-separated batch
Sulphur in non-separated batch
Appearance comments similar but higher score for separated batch, more head retention in non-separated batch
Astringency in separated batch, graininess stands out.
Hop flavour subdued in non-separated batch.
Body perceived lighter in non-separated batch.
Non-separated batch shows dryness mainly towards finish.
I hope the judges feel I paraphrased their comments fairly. Anyway, thanks to both of them and the EHG for putting on a great comp and providing a valuable service to homebrewers!
So, at least for a recipe that evolved with trub separation as a routine practice, the extra step gives the expected and desired result. My thoughts are that the effects are complex. As well as the presence of break solids themselves, there is the known effect of cold break reducing oxygen requirement, which would be important since I use air (pouring between two pails) instead of oxygen. There could also be an effect from the presence of particulate matter on yeast behaviour and flocculation. Brewing in general, and homebrewing in particular is full of interacting factors and conclusions are only weakly generalizable from one system to another. I perform trub separation mainly to get clean yeast cakes for re-pitching, and will continue to do so for that reason as well as to keep one more thing constant over the years.
As for those who say trub separation makes no difference - maybe: in your system, in the lab, in theory, in industrial breweries, etc. To those who claim it is absolutely required - no, it's not a huge difference. |
dhacker
Intermediate Member
Username: Dhacker
Post Number: 313
Registered: 11-2002
Posted From: 66.21.204.30
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 03:21 am: |
|
Very well done, Sean. I read your report twice so I hope I didn't miss this, but did the tasters know ahead of time which brew was which? I guess I'm wondering if knowing may have influenced their perception and evaluation even in a minute way. |
Joakim Ruud
Intermediate Member
Username: Joques
Post Number: 304
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 84.209.9.174
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 07:51 am: |
|
Very interesting! I would also like to know if the judges / brew bombers knew beforehand which was which.
I have started doing trub separation (lo-tech: let the wort sit for a day and the trub settle, then pour into another bucket) with my lagers, and from your findings I think I will continue doing that.
I will also start doing it when I plan to repitch on the yeast cake. |
Ken Anderson
Senior Member
Username: Ken75
Post Number: 1610
Registered: 11-2002
Posted From: 69.168.141.10
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 03:03 pm: |
|
Yes, I'd also like to know if the tests were blind.
And did they know what brewing processes you were comparing? |
Miker
Advanced Member
Username: Miker
Post Number: 518
Registered: 02-2003
Posted From: 69.15.183.207
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 03:06 pm: |
|
Nice work Sean. Interesting that the non separated batch had better head retention as I've read thats one of the negatives of trub along with more fusels, possible staling and a darkening of the beer. None of these possible negative effects seem to show up in the tastings.
One question, when you split the batch and one (non-separated) went immediately to primary after cooling, how was this transfer done. Didn't this leave behind quite a bit of hot and cold break (trub)?
And is it necessary to leave it that long (5 hours) for complete separation?
(Message edited by miker on June 30, 2006) |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 5732
Registered: 01-2001
Posted From: 140.211.82.4
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 04:15 pm: |
|
Yeah, I agree it's a nice experiment and I'd like to know if it was blind, too.
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
PaulK
Intermediate Member
Username: Paulk
Post Number: 470
Registered: 02-2003
Posted From: 68.84.198.40
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 04:46 pm: |
|
Based on the judges comments, assuming they are direct quotes, sounds like it wasn't blind. If it wasn't blind, I wonder how much the judges were influenced by their own expectations of the sepearted and non-seperated batches? |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 5733
Registered: 01-2001
Posted From: 140.211.82.4
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 05:34 pm: |
|
Paul, based on what I learned from doing "the experiment that shall not be named", expectation plays a HUGE part in the results.
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
ScottDeW
Intermediate Member
Username: Scott
Post Number: 451
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 128.129.13.2
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 05:36 pm: |
|
Hmmm... Just guessing here. Could be reading this wrong.
I bet the test was blind. He sent them to the Aurora Brewing Challenge so I assume they went in as two beers in the same flight. The comments were paraphrased and he probably added the batch identifiers (separated, non-separated) himself.
Hijack: Denny, when do we learn from "the experiment that shall not be named?"
(Message edited by scott on June 30, 2006)
Scott
http://texanbrew.com
|
Brad Petit
Junior Member
Username: Voodoobrew
Post Number: 90
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 69.22.24.144
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 07:10 pm: |
|
I know that, for me, expectations play a huge role in my perceptions. For example, if you hand me a Coors Light, I'll comment on its Rocky Mountain Freshness and ice cold taste. If, on the other hand, you tell me I'm drinking Miller Lite, I'll remark on how much more taste it has than Bud Light.
But that's just me. |
PaulK
Intermediate Member
Username: Paulk
Post Number: 471
Registered: 02-2003
Posted From: 68.84.198.40
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 09:27 pm: |
|
Denny - That wouldn't happen to be the big "D" experiment, would it? |
Ken Anderson
Senior Member
Username: Ken75
Post Number: 1611
Registered: 11-2002
Posted From: 69.168.141.10
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 09:29 pm: |
|
Shhhhh. We say that in hushed tones around here. |
Sean Richens
Intermediate Member
Username: Sean
Post Number: 327
Registered: 04-2001
Posted From: 142.161.111.25
| | Posted on Saturday, July 01, 2006 - 01:06 am: |
|
As ScottDeW pointed out, the whole object of submitting the beers to a competition was that the judges wouldn't even know that I labelled them "split batch 1" and "...2" - just a 3-digit code. There is a chance that I was selective in quoting the score sheets, but I did my best to pick the words that were different and leave out the ones that were the same. It wasn't a triangular tasting so each beer would have been evaluated spontaneously and among other beers, but there's only so many times a judge can write something original when tasting a flight, yet they try. Anyway, you all know that.
My local tasters might have been able to guess, but I just poured beers and said "this one on your right hand, this one on your left hand" so it wasn't fool-proof blind, and they DID know that trub separation was the difference. IOW, they could have been looking for the hypothetical differences, but didn't know which was which.
And I know there was a difference. I've repeated comparative tastings on several occasions and it's consistent. You do have to taste them side-by-side for it to be obvious.
As for technique, I stirred up the bitter worts and let them settle a few minutes, then racked with the cane tip off the bottom. No harm in letting the worst of the hop pellet spooge settle out. When I do trub separation, I find four hours about the minimum to get the bottom layer down to less than 2" deep. Six hours starts to make me nervous since I do this in my basement working area, not the lagering closet.
Perhaps I should increase the emphasis on one point - my trub includes hop pellet spooge. This was intended as a practical experiment and for me that means using hop pellets. If you have a nice hop back and use whole hops it would be different, but hop backs are often intended to remove break material, so as far as homebrew practice is concerned, this work covers the two alternatives most of us have. I know a lot of brewers leave the whole hops in primary when making ales.
A note regarding head retention, I don't see any difference between the two beers in real beer drinking. I set my carbonation level to work well in a full glass. Pouring a sample into a tasting cup is just never a true test of a beer's head formation under real drinking conditions. I've been tempted to add a primetab to each of my competition bottles to overcarbonate them in compensation for this. |
PaulK
Intermediate Member
Username: Paulk
Post Number: 475
Registered: 02-2003
Posted From: 68.84.198.40
| | Posted on Saturday, July 01, 2006 - 03:55 am: |
|
Sounds like you did a decent job trying to maintain the blind aspect to the tasting. Good info. |
Ken Anderson
Senior Member
Username: Ken75
Post Number: 1613
Registered: 11-2002
Posted From: 69.168.141.10
| | Posted on Saturday, July 01, 2006 - 01:44 pm: |
|
Sean, nice posts. Thanks for the effort and input.
I gotta add that I brew 10 gallon batches in a Sanke, and after fermentation completes, the batch gets split into two five gallon carboys for conditioning. From there, one carboy gets kegged, and the other remains in the chest freezer.
Here's the kicker: I have finished the first keg, then within a few days refilled it with that second carboy, and noticed a difference between the two. Maybe something to do with pressure and/or CO2?
Then again, maybe it's not unusual to notice a difference between the two carboys when one batch is split in two. Anyone else noticed such a thing?
Ken |
robert rulmyr
Advanced Member
Username: Wacobob
Post Number: 788
Registered: 02-2003
Posted From: 216.188.236.232
| | Posted on Saturday, July 01, 2006 - 02:45 pm: |
|
I'm gonna keep brewing 'maxi-trub' beers ( no separation ). It's hard enough to stop drinking it now, I don't know what will happen if it gets any better. |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 5734
Registered: 01-2001
Posted From: 140.211.82.4
| | Posted on Saturday, July 01, 2006 - 03:54 pm: |
|
Sean, that's good enough for me! Thanks for taking the time to do the experiment and post the data.
As to my "D" experiment, I'm tired of getting beaten up because people don't like the results. I'm not sure I'll ever publish the results, but I'm considering asking someone else to get involved to help interpret the results in a manner that people might accept.
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
Bob Wall
Junior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 55
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 24.99.80.253
| | Posted on Saturday, July 01, 2006 - 08:20 pm: |
|
I recently began re-circulating my hot wort through my chiller and oxygen stone in order to ensure sanitation in all my hoses before chilling.
I started to notice that I would get the most beautifilly formed cake of hops (I use pellet hops) on the false bottom.
I have been doing my primaries in buckets and secondaries in carboys, so I am not sure if my new re-circulation method is also separating the rest of the trub or not. I assume that it is, because if you saw the hop-cake that forms, it would remind you of a DE filter. Not much gets through that.
The only downside to this method is cleaning all the micro-particles out of my Therminator plate-chiller. This method would likely work much better with a Chillus style chiller, less crannies to deal with.
Thoughts?
Give a man a beer and he'll waste and hour. Teach a man to brew and he'll waste a lifetime.
|
Fredrik
Senior Member
Username: Fredrik
Post Number: 3242
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 213.114.44.200
| | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 08:12 am: |
|
Nice report Sean! Thanks for sharing!
You mentioned that the +trub batch was slower. I am curious if you can elaborate that details?
- Did it have longer lag? or longer primary? or how was it slower? how large was the difference?
Most papers I have seen indicate that trub usually improve performance by providing nutritients, mainly UFAs from the trub and stimulation by reducing the level of CO2 supersaturation by acting as nucleation sites.
/Fredrik |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 3043
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 216.23.59.245
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2006 - 09:07 pm: |
|
Denny, this January's, "Brauwelt International," has an article about Decoction / Infusion mashing. It boiled down to they could not statistically say that there was a difference nor could they say that there was not a difference. Obviously, if there is a difference, it is not much.
Dan
--This space is again being left intentionally blank.-
|
Joakim Ruud
Intermediate Member
Username: Joques
Post Number: 307
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 84.209.10.157
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2006 - 09:54 pm: |
|
Denny, I would very much like to hear your findings. For instance, in a particularly malty pilsner like Urquell, what kinds of specialty malts would you use instead of decoction?
Hope I'm not reopening any old wounds here on the forum by asking this... |
Hallertauer
Intermediate Member
Username: Hallertauer
Post Number: 396
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 192.85.16.1
| | Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 07:49 am: |
|
Joakim,
This is from Weissheimers web site. Use this instead of decoting to get that malty flavor.
Bruhmalt
Bruh malt, also known as Melanoidine malt, has a very strong colouring effect. The flavour is distinctly malty.
1. Production
Like Munich malt, Bruh malt is produced from barley with a normal to slightly-increased protein content. Steeping is designed to release as much as possible of the cell wall and protein. In this way a large number of primary materials, sugars, and amino acids are produced for the coloration process during kilning. At the end of the germination stage, by switching off the ventilation and the cooling system, the temperature in the grain is raised to up to 40°C. This is followed by CO2 enrichment. The result is a decomposition of the high molecular proteins and the starch. By using circulating air during kilning this decomposition process can be intensified. Kilning takes place at a temperature of approx. 95-110°C. At this high temperature the amino acids react with the sugars to form dark melanoidines.
2. Characteristics and Effects
The flavour is distinctly malty. The grain is soft and light brown in colour. The coloration characteristics are stronger than in the case of Münchner Malz and correspond to those of a caramel malt of the same colour intensity. Bruhmalt differs from caramel malt with the same colour intensity in that it has a reduced flavour and a reduced Maillard content. In this case an improvement in the stability of the taste is not as pronounced. Owing to the high temperature in the grain and the CO2 enrichment the enzyme strength is weaker than in the case of Pilsener malt beers. The saccharification time is considerably longer and the final fermentation is lower than is the case with light malts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Munich and Vienna Malt
Caramel Malt
Roasted Malt
Sour Malt
Bruh malt
Stabimalt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Application
Bruh malt is mostly used in order to obtain a dark coloration. The coloration effect is normally not sufficient to brew a very dark beer without the addition of roasted malt or dark caramel malt. Typical beers brewed with this malt are Festival beers, Märzen or reddish-brown beers.
3. Analysis
Bruh malt
Moisture, % 3 - 4
Extract*, % 78,5 - 80,0
Wort Colour, EBC 30 - 45
Protein, % 10 - 11,5
Kolbach Index 40 - 48
Friability, % 65 - 85
Saccharification Time, min 20 - 30
Final attenuation, % 78 - 70 |
Sean Richens
Intermediate Member
Username: Sean
Post Number: 328
Registered: 04-2001
Posted From: 142.161.27.122
| | Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 12:33 pm: |
|
Fredrik, the +trub batch was about 0.5 Plato higher in gravity at the end of primary fermentation. As a fairly empirical brewer I go by the approach that a beer is "done" when it looks and smells "done", and that stage took longer with the trub in. I was a bit surprised, given the ideas concerning UFAs. Otherwise there was no "scientific" difference, just a different appearance of the krausen heads.
As for the difference when splitting large batches between carboys, I don't get a difference if I bottle both the same day, or within a week. Any extra bulk aging does make a difference.
And thanks to Hallertauer for the info on using Brumalt. I've been experimenting with Gambrinus' Honey Malt, which I'm told is Brumalt. It does leave a nice flavour behind when fermented with lager yeast. I just need to tweak it with something biscuity. |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 5716
Registered: 01-2002
Posted From: 24.57.224.243
| | Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Aromatic malt is very similar to Brumalt or melanoidin malt. A small amount (not more than three percent) contributes a malty aroma/flavor. |
Ken Anderson
Senior Member
Username: Ken75
Post Number: 1621
Registered: 11-2002
Posted From: 69.168.141.10
| | Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 01:30 pm: |
|
I agree with Bill about the Aromatic and Melanoidin. I also think the maltsters have led us to believe that there is more of a difference in some of the "specialty" malts than there actually is. I'm not saying there's NOT a difference. It's just that there's some hype going on here. The nature of marketing, I suppose. |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 5739
Registered: 01-2001
Posted From: 63.114.138.2
| | Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 06:06 pm: |
|
Dan, thanks for the info...that'as not the first report I've seen to reach that conclusion. I even have quotes from a prof at Wienstephan saying pretty much the same thing, but I haven't been able to reach him to personally verify it. My research has shown me that there are MANY brewers out there with doubts as to the benefits of decoction. In fact, I've found that the strongest supporters of decoction mashing are those who have done objective experiments!
Joakim, in order to say what malts can be used to "mimic" a decoction, we first have to suppose that there are differences in the beers made with decoction. At this point, my research doesn not permit that conclusion. Of 42 tasters of 5 different beers, brewed with the same recipe other than the mash schedlue, less than half of them could identify or preferred the decocted beers.
Now, before Chumley points out that my taste buds are so bad that I can't tell the difference, please note that these conclusions weren't reached JUST by me.....
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
Ken Anderson
Senior Member
Username: Ken75
Post Number: 1624
Registered: 11-2002
Posted From: 69.168.141.10
| | Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 06:10 pm: |
|
Denny, did you mistype this sentence in your post?
"In fact, I've found that the strongest supporters of decoction mashing are those who have done objective experiments!" |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 3047
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 216.23.59.245
| | Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 06:39 pm: |
|
Denny, I could fax you the article if you want. Just E-mail me with a number.
Anyone else?
Dan
--This space is again being left intentionally blank.-
|
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 5743
Registered: 01-2001
Posted From: 63.114.138.2
| | Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 06:57 pm: |
|
I did, Ken...fortuantely you're familiar with my terrible typing! It should be..
"In fact, I've found that the strongest supporters of decoction mashing are those who have NOT done objective experiments!"
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 5744
Registered: 01-2001
Posted From: 63.114.138.2
| | Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 07:02 pm: |
|
Dan, fire in the hole...
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
Joakim Ruud
Intermediate Member
Username: Joques
Post Number: 309
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 84.209.10.157
| | Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 07:11 pm: |
|
>Joakim, in order to say what malts can be used to
>"mimic" a decoction, we first have to suppose that
>there are differences in the beers made with
>decoction. At this point, my research doesn not
>permit that conclusion. Of 42 tasters of 5
>different beers, brewed with the same recipe other
>than the mash schedlue, less than half of them
>could identify or preferred the decocted beers.
Denny, that's pretty darn amazing to me. Conventional wisdom certainly maintains that decoction will increase maltiness. So you are saying that malty decocted beers (like Urquell) get their maltiness not from the decoction but from other factors, like specialty malts, mash temps and/or yeast selection?
That's...wow. Every time I think I have a handle on the art/science that is brewing, somebody comes aloong and shows me that most of what I "know" is pure speculation and hearsay. I love this hobby 
Denny, for doing these empirical experiments in the face of conventional wisdom, you are now my official hero!
Joakim |
Ken Anderson
Senior Member
Username: Ken75
Post Number: 1628
Registered: 11-2002
Posted From: 69.168.141.10
| | Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 07:15 pm: |
|
Joakim, somewhere I believe I read Urquell does a relatively long boil. Maybe their site, or something from Jackson. Maybe that's a contributor to the maltiness.
Hey Joakim, how do you pronounce your name, for us non-Scandinavians?
Ken |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 5746
Registered: 01-2001
Posted From: 63.114.138.2
| | Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 07:21 pm: |
|
Joakim, that's basically what I'm getting at...and what many others have verified.
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 5750
Registered: 01-2001
Posted From: 63.114.138.2
| | Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 07:50 pm: |
|
Dan kindly faxed me the article. For the curious out there, here's the last sentence...
"The technically complex decoction method can be replaced by an infusion method deduced from it without causing significant changes where taste and beer quality is concerned".
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
Joakim Ruud
Intermediate Member
Username: Joques
Post Number: 310
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 84.209.10.157
| | Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 08:13 pm: |
|
Ken, it is difficult since the intonation of Norwegian and English are so different (and English doesn't have quite the "o" sound in my name), but here's an approximation:
YOO-ah-kimm (_not_ "keem")
Actually Norwegian is fairly unique even among Scandinavian languages in how syllables are stressed. Most _every_ syllable is stressed, just in different ways, as opposed to English where usually only one syllable is stressed. It makes for a very melodious language. That's what foreigners tell us anyway, we can't hear it ourselves. In my name, though, the first syllable is stressed the most.
(Message edited by joques on July 06, 2006) |
Hallertauer
Intermediate Member
Username: Hallertauer
Post Number: 399
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 192.85.16.1
| | Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 10:36 am: |
|
**makes for a very melodious language. That's what foreigners tell us anyway**
So as for foreigners I guess you are talking about the Swedes. When I'm there on business they say Norwegians talk as if they are singing. They also have a bunch of Norwegian jokes. I walked by a movie theater once and they were showing Monty Python's Holy grail, and there was a sign that said, "The movie that was too funny to be shown in Norway." |
Joakim Ruud
Intermediate Member
Username: Joques
Post Number: 311
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 84.209.10.157
| | Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 10:43 am: |
|
All foreigners say it, not only Swedes
Mmmm, not correct I think. It was Life of Brian that was banned because it was "blasphemous", and it wasn't released until sometime in the eighties. How insane is that.
We have had our share of religious-right administrations since WWII, thankfully things are looking up in that department. |
Hallertauer
Intermediate Member
Username: Hallertauer
Post Number: 400
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 192.85.16.1
| | Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 01:28 pm: |
|
Oh yes, Life of Brian it was. Anyway it was a pretty clever jab I thought.
Have a great weekend. |
Joakim Ruud
Intermediate Member
Username: Joques
Post Number: 312
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 84.209.10.157
| | Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 01:52 pm: |
|
Yep, agree
It _will_ be a great weekend - this Sunday I am doing the test brew at the micro brewery, which will determine who gets the job as brewer. Looking forward to it! |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 5732
Registered: 01-2002
Posted From: 24.57.224.243
| | Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 02:35 pm: |
|
Knock 'em dead, Joakim! Good luck to you. |
Beerboy AKA The Jolly Brewer
Senior Member
Username: Matfink
Post Number: 1195
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 86.128.168.78
| | Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 04:27 pm: |
|
Good luck Joakim, let us know how it goes, and fingers crossed! |
Joakim Ruud
Intermediate Member
Username: Joques
Post Number: 313
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 84.209.10.157
| | Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 04:54 pm: |
|
Will do! |
Fredrik
Senior Member
Username: Fredrik
Post Number: 3245
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 213.114.44.200
| | Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 05:38 pm: |
|
Good luck Joakim!! Sounds fun!
So where is this microbrewery, in Oslo?
/Fredrik |
Joakim Ruud
Intermediate Member
Username: Joques
Post Number: 314
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 84.209.10.157
| | Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 10:31 pm: |
|
Yes, it's about halfway between the royal castle and Majorstua, if you're familiar with Oslo.
Sean, I'm very sorry for hijacking your thread! |
Hallertauer
Intermediate Member
Username: Hallertauer
Post Number: 401
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 84.169.68.151
| | Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 08:22 am: |
|
Joakim,
Just don't show the guys at the micro your ugly asss chiller!
GOOD LUCK! |
Joakim Ruud
Intermediate Member
Username: Joques
Post Number: 315
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 84.209.10.157
| | Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 10:01 am: |
|
|
Sean Richens
Intermediate Member
Username: Sean
Post Number: 331
Registered: 04-2001
Posted From: 142.161.108.209
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 04:13 am: |
|
Joakim posted: Sean, I'm very sorry for hijacking your thread!
Hey, I'm just waiting to hear how it went for you. Do they wait until they taste the final product to choose their new brewer? I get antsy enough waiting for a batch to be ready so I can taste it; I can't imagine being in your shoes with a great job on the line. |
Joakim Ruud
Intermediate Member
Username: Joques
Post Number: 319
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 84.209.10.157
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 07:03 pm: |
|
Nah, actually I was hoping to get an answer before this weekend. But I guess not! We had the old brewer hanging over our shoulders for the entire brew day, so it's not like any of us had any opportunity to screw the beer up ;) |
Brews and Views Archive 2006 
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page