Talk:Beer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Etymology

A few bones of contention with the Etymology section:

Of the two terms, beer and ale, the latter is the older in English.

I can't imagine where the author was coming from on this point. Both are as old as the written English (and hence, Germanic) word itself. One may hypothesise about unattested Proto-Germanic origins, but as soon as the English word is written, both words are attested in the language as seemingly native germanic terms, so I simply don't know what asserting that one is 'older' means.

It is believed to come directly from the proto-Indo European root *alu-, through Germanic *aluth- ([1]). The same word is the stem for Finnish olut, Estonian õlu, Danish øl and Latvian alus.

This might be the case, but if so, it is a foreign borrowing, presumably from Proto-Germanic, and not a direct native derivation in Finnish and Estonian, as Finnish and Estonian are not Indo-European languages like Danish and Latvian. Conflating borrowings with direct derivations confuses the account.

Beer, on the other hand, is considered to come from the Latin bibere (to drink, [2]). Old English sources distinguish between "ale" and "beer,"

Old English sources do not "distinguish" between ale and beer as far as I am aware. They refer to both 'beor' and 'ealu', but I am not aware of any Old English text in which these two are juxtaposed as different drinks and a distinction is made. The terms appear to be interchangeable.

The Old English form of "beer" disappeared shortly after the Norman Conquest, and the word re-entered English centuries later, in exclusive reference to hopped malt beverages.

If the Old English 'form' refers to the word form, then certainly the fact that English was virtually unwritten in major extant manuscripts during the first century after the Norman conquest would provide for its 'disappearance'. But that doesn't really have anything to do with beer as such. At any rate, "centuries later" is patently false. "Beore" is used in Layamon's Brut circa 1200. But as for 12th century usage, seeing as significant 12th century English manuscripts are virtually non-existent, attempting to demonstrate anything about usage is basically impossible. One could say the same thing about many another word and it would be equally true and equally meaningless. If no one wrote 'horse' in an extant manuscript due to the English language's disuse in the first half-century after the Norman conquest, does that mean no one was riding horses for the duration of the period? More likely, if there was a decline in horse-riding, which is entirely possible, it simply isn't an etymological matter: If the "Old English form" refers to the brewing of beer without hops, that would seem to just be part of the larger historical phenomenon involving the transition to widespread use of hops, and would seem to be all but irrelevant to etymology and the disuse of English following the Norman conquest. --Yst 23:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Starch Does Not Ferment

There's several places in the article I've found that imply that starch ferments. While it is true that fermentable sugars can be derived from starches (and are in the case of beer during the mashing of the malt), the starches themselves will not ferment. I will try to make this a bit clearer where I can.

Purge

I have purged a whole lot of stuff - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer. It is all in other places. Please restore anything that really adds value to this article. Justinc 16:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External Links

There are far too many external links many of which are at best irrelevant and at worst spam.

The song "John Barleycorn"

Some mention should be made of the song "John Barleycorn" :) DryGrain 17:06, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The effect of different waters on the taste

"Because beer is composed mainly of water, the source of the water and its characteristics have an important effect on the character of the beer." - the first clause of this sentence is somwhat misleading. The reason that water has a major effect on the taste of beer is that the mineral content of the water affects the chemistry of the mash tun. If you were to mash and boil, and then split the wort into two gyles, one of which was topped up with hard water and one with soft water, then the resulting beers would be pretty similar. If however, the two batches were mashed and boiled separately, one with hard water and one with soft water, then there would be a much more noticeable difference in taste. MattF 08:49 Feb 19, 2003

Some breweries, particularly microbreweries, go as far as to purify the water with reverse osmosis, and then adding minerals manually. This is used both to optimize flavor, and to emulate the water of various regions (for instance, emulating water from Plzen when making a Czech style pilsener). Maybe worth mentioning in the article? Kvan 11:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the water source is much less important in beer-brewing than in liquor-distilling. Obviously huge differences in hardness or a large amount of chlorine (which can inhibit yeast) in the water supply will influence brewing process, but the subtle water source variations are not going to shine through the malt and hop flavors in the finished product even in the lighter beers, certainly not the way they do in vodka, for instance. It's worth noting that blind taste tests on bottled water have surprising results,--many tests have shown municipal water supplies preferred to even premium mineral or spring water brands. In any event, most brewers--even craft or microbrewers--are content to simply pass tap water through an activated carbon filter once to remove chlorine and any obvious off-odors or flavors in the supply. NTK 06:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The distinctions between lager, ale and wheat beer

Ale vs "Lager". Many contributors to this encyclopaedia are incorrectly using the term "lager" when they mean bottom fermented Ale or Beer. There are two main types of yeast - top fermenting yeast and bottom fermenting yeast. In the UK, Ireland and Belgium, the predominant method of brewing uses top fermenting yeast. In Germany and central Europe (Czech Republic and other places) the predominant method uses bottom fermenting yeast.

The term lager is almost exclusively used in the UK and Ireland (possibly in other English speaking countries). It would never be used by a German Brewer to describe a beer. It is used to describe a brewing process - lagering is storing beer until the fermentation has slowed down to a specific point; this is a process that tends to be used for bottom fermented beers; although top fermented beers do have to go through a period of conditioning.

Bottom fermented beers can be light, dark, strong, weak, wheat beers etc... calling them lager is a misnomer.

The products marketed as lager in the UK was inevitably very light and bore a passing resemblance to Pilsner beers, or Budweiser beers (those from the Czech? towns of Pilsen and Budweis respectively). However this was as often as not Top fermented beer, anyway! So to compare bottom fermented beers with lager is an insult to continental brewers.

User:Rethunk correctly pointed out that Hefeweizen is only a variant of wheat beer, so we may consider making it a subentry. The other subentry would be what we call in German "Kristallweizen". Not sure about the correct English term, tho.

BTW, I also don't quite understand why the distinction betw Lager and Ale is so fundamental. Maybe we should add "wheat beer" as another fundamental category? This way, we wouldn't have to go three levels deep.

Part of the ale vs lager problem is that there are really two issues involved -- yeast strain and fermentation temperature/duration. (See table below) "Lager" is German for "store", and the name literally refers to a (cool) slow-fermented beer. (The higher the temperature, the faster the fermentation completes, so duration and temperature are closely related.) However, modern usage is that beer innoculated with S. cerevisiae is an "ale" while beer innoculated with S. uvarum is considered a "lager". Ales that are slow-fermented (the tricky case in the table below) can be considered lagers, but in my experience they are usually classified as ales.

	Yeast strain
Fermentation temp, duration	S. cerevisiae	S. uvarum
Cool (~1-7° C), 30-50 days	The tricky case	Lager beer
Warm (~10-15° C), 10-20 days	Ale	(Probably nasty tasting)

-- Jrv 06:11 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

Jrv: actually, beer with lager yeast brewed at ale temperatures--that you say is "probably nasty tasting"--is in fact how steam beer is made. Whether you think it's nasty or not is another matter--it was traditionally considered inferior, but it is a style that has been long appreciated and has been renewed by craft brewers especially on the west coast. The style is also known as "California common". NTK 06:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sebastian 07:56 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

Sebastian - Gruess Dich.

There is no commonly accepted translation for "Kristallweizen" (crystal wheat) in English; I'm not aware of any breweries outside of Germany who brew it. If Kristallweizen were brewed in the USA, it would probably be called by its German name since it is popular for American wheat beers to be called "Weizen" and "Hefeweizen".

According to the site I added at the bottom of the page, wheat beer can be considered either a lager or an ale. Steam beer, which is brewed only in San Franciso by the Anchor brewery, is similar in that it belongs to neither of the two major categories: if I remember correctly, Anchor Steam is brewed using bottom-fermenting (untergaerige), lager-style yeast in a top-fermenting (obergaerige), ale-style process. Perhaps a wheat beer could be called wheat ale or wheat lager to be more specific.

Lambics and some other beers don't fit very well into the categorization of lager/ale, but statistically speaking most beers will fall into one category or the other (based on what I've read, anyway). Most wheat beers I've drunk were lager-style Weizens in which wheat was used in addition to barley, but the brewing process was otherwise the same as for lagers. A Roggen (rye beer) would probably fit in the same category.--Rethunk

I see! Sorry, I overlooked your description. BTW, there is a nice graph on http://kss.virtualave.net/Bier/BIERSORTENKARTE.htm, but the owner of the site doesn't remember where he stole it from, so we can't copy it. Sebastian 03:24 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Categorizing by yeast is appopriate. Varying this one ingredient changes a beer recipe from one style to another. A porter brewed with lager yeast becomes a schwartzbeir, a pilsner brewed with ale yeast becomes a pale ale (of some sort). Wheat beer would not fit as a major category because it would open up categories based on sugars used. Barley and wheat are common sugars/grains used in brewing but also common are grains like oats, rice, rye, etc. Also the grains used can be combined in some (if not most) recipes. Thus, yeast is appropriate as a top level of categorization, because in the brewing process one type of yeast will take over the fermenation process (in other words if you put lager and ale yeast in the same batch of beer one will thrive, usually based on temperature). The third category of wild yeast follows this categorization as well. If I added a fourth categorization I would create one for beers that do not follow the typical European grain/yeast/hop/water recipe, such as the beers of Africa. Kidvicious 02:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Lager"

One contributor asserts that lagers are the most commonly consumed types of beer in the world.

Aside from the fact that the word lager is an English only, bastard term (i.e. having no legitimate parentage), where is his statistics?

The term lager was invented by the marketing departments of the big six brewers in the UK to describe a filtered and pasteurised (bright) beer, served under CO2 pressure and invariably of a very light colour, and often brewed using top fermenting yeast; although sometimes "correctly" brewed using bottom fermenting yeast. In colour it resembles pilsner or budweiser or similar central european beers. However most central european beers are brewed using bottom fermenting yeast and then lagered - conditioned in the brewery. But they would NEVER be called lager in their country of origin. To "please" parts of the (particularly) British market; the use of the description "lager beer" is creeping in; but this ought to be "lagered beer"

If the contibutor who says that lagers are the most commonly consumed beers in the world actually means that bottom fermented beers (of all styles - including dark beers, wheat beers, and "brown" coloured beers) are the most commonly consumed beers, then he needs to say that (and provide evidence). It is totally misleading to say what he says since the term "lager" is a wholly English Language term, covering some top fermented and some bottom fermented beers - but all are "keg" beers, and all are of a light colour.

Oktoberfest

I can't help, but I wouldn't put the Oktoberfest under the term "holiday" as it is done in the text. Some may spend their holidays on it, but it is more like a fair or may be a volk festival. Oscar

I changed the reference to Oktoberfest to a reference to Märzen, because octoberfest is not a kind of beer. Märzen is a special beer made only for the Oktoberfest. Stefan

Maerzen is not really brewed specially for Oktoberfest, traditionally it was brewed in March, hence the name, and drunk all summer. When the weather began to cool at the end of September the remaining supplies were consumed in a festival that became Oktoberfest. In the US Maerzen is usually brewed all year and is for instance Gordon Beirsch's most popular beer Bob Palin 00:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who thought of raspberry beer first?

I removed the reference to raspberry beer as being one of the "original varieties" of USA beer as I believe it was brewed in Belgium before it was brought to the USA. -- Infrogmation 00:13 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Lack of coverage of Asian beer

There needs to be inclusion of Asian sources of beer especially Japan, which has its own style and strong history. Also the same can be said for the rest of Asia, South America, and Africa, whose South African Brewing controls quite a large portion of the beer market through its ownership of Miller, Morretti, and countless brands. Lets expand past parts of Europe, and two of the north american countries

Agreed; for instance, Asahi beer has quite a following (I personally think it tastes a little too light). --Deathphoenix 20:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Strange coverage of European beer

In the "Beer around the world" -section, there are mentioned Germany (which is known to produce excellent beer), and France, Italy and Spain (which are famous for their wine, not beer). The list is lacking two of the most famous high-quality beer producing countries, that is, Belgium (known for strong monastery beer) and Czech Republic (known for pilsners, in particular Pilsner Urquell).

No mention of Belgium or the Czech Republic is criminal. And Belgium is known for more than "strong monastery beer." They produce literally hundreds of styles. Only six breweries can produce official Trappist beer. Al 13:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I like that Italian beer Peroni, yum

Broken link

I took this link out as it is broken: [1] - professional education and consulting in brewing technology Angela

No record of award

I cut the statement in the Poland section that Tyskie "won a golden medal award in the London grand prix competition". The Tyskie website [2] has sections on two different beers, but doesn't mention a specific award in relation to either of them. Markalexander100 05:52, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Historical changes in the strength of American beer

"The lager brewed by these companies was not the extremely weak and mild lager now associated with modern US megabreweries." I've been wondering for a while whether this is truly historical or an apocryphal legend. We've all heard the story that beer was watered down for women during WWII and never recovered. However, a good article I came across on American Heritage seems to contradict that:

"The beer served in the Beer and Whiskey League stadiums in spring 1882 was recognizably the American beverage we know today. Milder, lighter, and less bitter than older American ales or European beers, pale, effervescent, low in alcohol, and served very cold, it was a refreshment, meant to be drunk quickly. No longer part of the history of American nourishment, it was now part of the history of American entertainment."

There's some speculation that American beer tastes changed as a result of Prohibition; the near beer page briefly alludes to that theory. I'll see if I can find anything to substantiate it. - jredmond 23:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Read the American pilsner article and consult the references of that article. Professional brewing historians agree that the modern industrial US beer is not the way it was brewed before Prohibition. Two of the seminal articles that revived interest in the original formulations are Fix, G. 1994. Pre-prohibition lagers. Brewing Techniques. May/June and Jankowski, B. 1994. Bushwick pilsners. Brewing Techniques. Jan/Feb Dogface 05:03, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The characterization of modern American beer as "history's saddest mistake" sounds a little POV to me. Is this a generally-accepted opinion? Surely there are sadder mistakes in history! --Wtshymanski 02:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whether hops is a recent addition

This is not consistant! The article says first that hops is a recent addition, but later mentions that hops was added as earlier as the 11th century. What is it?

Considering that the Sumerians invented beer several couple thousand years ago, I'd say that the 11th century is "recent". Alternately, the use of hops was not universal until "recently". - jredmond 17:36, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it contradicts itself. In addition to saying "recent," it also says that they were introduced "only a few hundred years ago." That leaves much less to interpretation than "recent."

Hmm, perhaps. Anybody willing to find a reliable source and clarify it further? - jredmond 14:57, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere in the article, the earliest reference to hops being used is from Hildegard of Bingen in the 11th century.

Barbara Tuchman in a A Distant Mirror wrote about peasant uprisings. Some of these uprisings where the result of new laws that forced hops into the beverages. Since Ale only lasted a few days without hops, a malt harvest with spare malt could result in week-long stupor of the peasant population. To avoid this, hops was introduced. Revolts against this law where abundant, and were brutally crushed. (MyPOV: In a modern democracy, hops would never have been introduced. I personally prefer Ale without hops, since it tastes a lot better.)DanielDemaret 13:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The influence of the Canadian climate on its beer production

"Canada has a long history of beer production and consumption as the cold climate provides ideal conditions for brewing."

Hmmm, first of all Canada is not that cold. Most of the population is along the US border which is definitely not "cold" for half of the year. And could this really be the reason why Canada has a long history of beer production? Many other "non-cold" countries have long histories of beer production as well so I don't really see an easy correlation here. dave 08:03, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

ok, actually I do see some merit in the original text. Because of it's cold climate in the winter and parts of fall and spring, certain areas of Canada were able to brew beer BEFORE aritifical refrigeration. So the text needs a little rewording, so that it referse only to the past, not the present, when temperatures no longer matter thanks to technology. dave 08:06, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Drunken Indian Elephants

I have again amended the sentence that says Elephants are known to attack villages, with the primary agenda of raiding these vats and having a good time generally. There can be no evidence for the claims that elephants have a primary agenda of having a good time by raiding vats. There may be evidence that they are hungry or thirsty (perhaps the reason they raid villages which don't have breweries). Moriori 02:27, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

---

Actually there is evidence of this in the article at: http://www.theindian.co.nz/testing/plugin/news/journal/plugin.asp?plugin=article_view_Unwrap.asp&abxyk945=301&iabspos=137&vjob=vcat%2C111

In this article it states: A police officer in Dumka said: "Tribals who love rice beer brew the liquor at home. Elephants too are fond of this beer.

"Often it is found that, attracted by the strong smell of the liquor, wild elephants tear down the tribal houses where the brew is stored."

Also Rudyard Kipling wrote of an elephant enjoying arrack (a coconut liquor) and beer in his book "My Lord the Elephant" over a century ago. It's available at: http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/prose/ManyInventions/lordelephant.html

The particular relevant text is: “Now,” sez I, settin’ down on his fore-foot, “we’ll have a drink, an’ let bygones be.” I sent a child for a quart of arrack, an’ the sergeant’s wife she sent me out four fingers of whisky, an’ when the liquor came I cud see by the twinkle in Ould Typhoon’s eye that he was no more a stranger to it than me,—worse luck, than me! So he tuk his quart like a Christian, an’ then I put his shackles on, chained him fore an’ aft to the pickets, an’ gave him my blessin’ an went back to barricks.’

‘Subsequint, me an’ the Venerable Father of Sin became mighty friendly. I wud go down to the lines, when I was in disgrace, an’ spend an afternoon collogin’ wid him; he chewin’ wan stick of sugar-cane an’ me another, as thick as thieves. He’d take all I had out of my pockets an’ put it back again, an’ now an’ then I’d bring him beer for his dijistin’, an’ I’d give him advice about bein’ well behaved an’ keepin’ off the books. After that he wint the way of the Army, an’ that’s bein’ transferred as soon as you’ve made a good friend.’

I also came across the following article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2583891.stm: Drunk elephants kill six people

Drunken elephants have trampled at least six people to death in the northeast Indian state of Assam, local officials say. The herd of wild elephants stumbled across the supplies of homemade rice beer after they destroyed granaries in search of food. The incident happened near Tinsukia, 550 kilometres (344 miles) from the Assam capital, Guwahati. "They smashed huts and plundered granaries and broke open casks to drink rice beer. The herd then went berserk killing six people," a forestry official told AFP news agency. ... "It has been noticed that elephants have developed a taste for rice beer and local liquor and they always look for it when they invade villages," an elephant expert in Guwahati told Reuters news agency.

Since the elephants seem to go to great lengths to get at the beer when there are large quantities of rice or water more easily available, it is apparent that they are not simply hungry or thirsty. Clearly these pachyderms thoroughly enjoy drinking beer. Also mahouts in India affirm that their elephant partners enjoy drinking and get quite tipsy.

As an interesting aside trained Indian elephants are said to understand over 1,100 human commands whereas humans barely understand any words of elephantese. Rameses 16:27 July 6, 2004

Export, Maerzen

The Märzen article (a link I just made accersible by correcting the umlaut) names Maerzen beers that are not Octoberfest beers. So, what exactly differentiates a Maerzen from a Helles. (Being from Munich, I'm a bit embarrassed to ask this question, but I'm unsure myself.) Is it just the higher Stammwuerze content? And, BTW, what is the difference between a Helles and an Export. I always considered Export to be the South German breweries' way of translating Helles. Any examples for an Export proper? Simon A. 14:46, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Beer is an alcoholic drink with a (relatively) low alcohol content. There are two basic types of beer: Lagers and Ales. They differ in the yeast and the fermentation temperature.

An ale is generaly a lighter beer. An ale is also easier to make because the yeast is active at a warmer temperature than a lager's yeast. Lagers on the other hand are made from a yeast that is active at a much cooler temperature.

A lager is generally a dark beer and an ale is generally a light beer.

The flavor of the beer, surprisingly enough, depends on what you put into it. The most common ingredients are barley, malt, grains (various) and hops.

Large production beers(such as Budweiser) are called macrobrews. They commonly use little barley and dry it to reduce the amount it plays into the flavor. The grain used is also most commonly corn because it is also relatively weak flavored. This is why many persons from other countries say that our beer tastes like water.

"A lager is generally a dark beer and an ale is generally a light beer." Umm.. Is this true? Where I come from (England), all the ales I drink seem to be darker in colour and heavier in taste than lagers. Compare Mighty Oak brews to Budweiser?

Heck no. Stout is an ale. As is Porter. I think it is more accurate to say that ale provides a broader spectrum of colors and flavors from very dark to very light, from very rich to simply dancing on your tongue. You can call me Al 21:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Beers of the world?

I'm a collector of beer bottles and an amateur beer lover (still need some experience ;-). After seeing this great article, I thought of making a WikiProject for all kinds and brands of beer with history (wich is often really interesting), flavors, formats, facts... Well, beer articles could have a very interesting amount of information and could be very interesting, in my opinion.

Well, it's not easy to drive a WikiProject if you have other things to do like studying, working, other projects and specially if you're not very used to Wikipedia like me. That's why I need some more people to found it. But, before that I'd like to know your impressions and your ideas.

I'd be very glad to give my best with it.

Cheers,
KeyStorm 18:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Largest Brewers

A recent edit claims "Heineken is the world's second-largest brewer of beer." However, both Heineken and SABMiller make that claim. Anyone have data to back it up? My money is on SABMiller, but Heineken's production volume is formidable. Interbrew is also a contender

If I find anything on the web I'll do the update -- Kaszeta 14:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interbrew has recently (in August 2004) completed its merger with AmBev. According to its Website, the new company InBev "forms the No.1 brewer in the world by volume with a global market share of 13% (on a pro forma basis for the year ended December 31, 2003)". In terms of sales, InBev reported "on a 2003 consolidated pro forma basis, a net turnover of ?9,287 million (USD 10,521 million)" (this includes soft drink operations). For first half 2004, the company reported volume of 54.7 million hectolitres. In its annual report, Anheuserbusch reported 2003 net sales of about $11,600 million from its brewery operations (the company also has other business lines) and 129,8 million barrels of beer sold. SABMiller reported (not sure whether gross or net) turnover (all operations) for the FY ending March 31st 2004 as $12,645 million and 47.2 million hectolitres of beer sold. Heineken reported net turnover for 2003 of ?9,255 million and beer sales of 109.0 hectolitres. The company claims a global market share (I assume by sales) of 7%.

So you could probably argue that any of the above is the world's largest brewer - but we should leave it to a beer industry analyst to give a definitive view. It would probably be more accurate to separately describe companies as the largest (2nd largest etc.) brewer by volume or by sales. Scott Moore 11:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, just did a Web search a found a beer analyst (www. euromonitor.com). According to Euromonitor: "Belgium's Interbrew SA and Brazil's Companhia de Bebidas das Américas (AmBev) announced plans to merge on March 3, 2004, unveiling a complicated stock swap that will create the world's largest brewer by volume....with a 9% share of the global beer market. It will sell in excess of 13 billion litres annually (excluding sales of licensed brands and sales through non majority held subsidiaries), taking over Anheuser-Busch?s mantle as top brewer". Scott Moore 11:37, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Length

The article is 45 kilobytes long, which I think shouldn't be the case with a featured article. Perhaps Beer and nationality could be moved to a separate article? Nikola 09:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So if noone disagrees, I'd do it in a few days. Nikola 23:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, however please change the title. The text is NOT about beer and nationality, but rather a desription of beers in various countries of the world. Scott Moore 12:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See my comments on beer project; I am splitting Beer and nationality into seperate articles. Justinc 14:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

sumerians and mesoptamians

The ancient sumerians inhabited Ancient mesopotamia, So saying "historicly, beer was known to the sumerians, egyptians, and mesopotimians" would be like saying " the U.S.A, Egyptians, and americans"!

Beer Tasting Notes

I have a list of 280+ beers that I tasted in the UK, belgium, Austria and the US. I'd be interetsed in sharing these notes.

How alcoholic can beer get?

Recently, someone added,

The average beer contains 4–6% alcohol, although alcohol content can be as low as 2% and as high as 20%+.

I was under the impression that the highest beer can get is around 12%, at which point the yeast can no longer survive. Any extra alcohol has to be added in. Does anyone know if this is true? A minor point; it'd still be nice to know. --Sean κ. ⇔ 05:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dont see any technical reason why it shouldnt get as strong as wine if you used wine yeasts (there is one Belgian beer refermented with champagne yests, but it is 12%, like Champagne). 20% seems rather high though. I cant remember what the strongest beer in the world is, I will look it up, they sell it in my local beer shop.Justinc 09:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The highest that I've seen is about 10% (specifically barley wine), which requires the use of specialized yeast. Anything with a greater must be distilled, and I think then qualifies as a distilled beverage, and is no longer (I think) beer. – ClockworkSoul 13:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More info, taken from the distilled beverage article: Beer and wine are limited to a maximum 15 percent alcohol, beyond which yeast is adversely affected and can not ferment.. – ClockworkSoul 13:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The strongest beer in the world Samichlaus is 14%. I might write a little article on it... Justinc 13:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

there, read all about it... Justinc 13:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are actually stronger beers in existance -- Dogfish Brewery's 120 minute IPA is 21% ABV; Samuel Adams has also brewed some high alcohol specialty beverages. This was where my original "20%+" reference comes from; I think this is a minor quibble, however -- in most cases beer yeast will rarely ferment a beverage over 12-14%. --Soundwave106 13:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's odd... their website doesn't mention any special process. It claims that they get the wort to 45 degree Plato... that's a 1.180 original gravity!! I suppose that corresponds to 20% alcohol, if the final gravity dips below 1.020. The question is how the hell to they get that to happen? This is completely challanging my conceptions of the brewing process! (also, the beer has 120 IBU.. this is beginning to sound more like rubbing alcohol). —Sean κ. ⇔ 14:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's actually not bad, but it's syrupy and thick, impossible to do anything but sip. Kind of like beery-hopped port, I guess. Scientifically, from poking around the Homebrew Digest, it seems like this may be possible based on the large amount of interest from brewers in high-gravity brewing (where you brew with a high wort concentration and then dilute the final product). There's a few references I've found: an old one ("Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Sept 1984, p 639-646, Vol 48, No 3., Casey, Magnus, Ingledew") plus some online papers ((1) (2) (3). I haven't coughed up the cash for these papers, or poked around further. But the industrial interest in high gravity brewing may explain how yeast tolerance has been pushed by modern craft brewers. Homebrew yeast supplier White Labs does have some more practical brewing information for their "super high gravity ale yeast" that they claim can go up to 25%, and how to get that yield. As an additional note, the keys seem to be in yeast nutrition and oxygen aeration; one can debate on how "natural" such techniques really are. --Soundwave106 20:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, from the looks of that White Labs website, you can get 25% by simply pushing the yeast to its limit. Still, I suspect what you are doing is dramatically shortening the lifespan of a yeast cell, and giving it just enough time to reproduce before it keels over from alcohol poisoning. Anyone here a biologist/professional brewer? —Sean κ. ⇔ 20:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The strongest an alcaholic drink can get without distilling it (getting rid of the water, basically concentratnig the alcohol) is about 12%. At least thats what I though, i can quite believe however that it can get up to 14% but not any higher. If there is a beer that is over that percentage then it has been distilled. The yeast get killed by the alcohol when it reaches about 11% thats why you cant get beer any higher as someone else rightly said. Borb 20:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've found the Belzebuth - Grain d'Orge Brewery 13% but a 15% version was sold before. It seems that you can't go to this only with adding some sugar without sugar beer will go around 6% Ericd 16:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Probably more like 10% without pushing the yeast (traditional brewing), just a minor quibble :) Examples of all-malt styles that are high alcohol include doppelbock (7%-8% typically) and English / American barleywine (8-10%). Most of the imperial styles (e.g. imperial IPA, imperial stout) are also around 7-9% and are sometimes all-grain. I've homebrewed a 7% all malt doppelbock before (and it won a gold medal in the category, so I did *something* right :) ). Sugar is usually used to lighten the heavy nature of the all malt styles (Belgian dubbel / trippels are the best example) and I think above a certain ABV that really becomes important, if not for the process than for the taste. --Soundwave106 15:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The process used to obtain the Super High Gravity yeasts (now used in such beers as Dogfish Head's 120 Minute IPA (21% ABV) and World Wide Stout (18% ABV), and Samuel Adams Trippple Bock (21% ABV) and Utopia (25% ABV) basically involved a series of forced breeding over the course of 4-5 years. The Samuel Adams brewers essentially continuously cultivated a batch of yeast in successively higher original gravities (and, thus, successively higher ABV after fermentation). The surviving yeasts of the last batch were pitched and cultivated in the next batch. Similar to the principle of breeding dogs to attain a particular look, these yeasts were specifically bred to produce a high ABV tolerance. Homebrewers can now buy these high-gravity, high-ABV-tolerance yeasts from online yeast suppliers. Extreme Unction 01:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

--- Although there are no commercial beer styles (that I am aware of) which appoach 20%ABV, it is possible to make such beers without fortification. Modern incremental fermentation methods have been used in laboratory settings to make 'beer' of such strength. Also the "eisbock' process can readily make beers of such strength without evaporative distillation. Tim Rastetter, then brewer at Breworks of Covington Kentucky made such a beer by the eisbock process, circa 1997. It was to appear in the Guinness book of records as the strongest commercial beer, however that beer was never sold commercially as the Microbrewery ceased business operation before it was made available. I've tasted this beer myself - and it's very strong, but also amazingly smooth and balanced.

The "Strongest Beer in the World" has been recognized as the Samuel Adams Utopias, which is 25% ABV (50 proof). They're currently brewing 8,000 bottles of the limited-edition brew, which is packaged in a collectible brew-kettle shaped bottle reminiscent of the copper brewing kettles used by brewmasters for hundreds of years.[3] Dr. Cash 18:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

--- Don't forget that there are local laws that define beer for reasons like taxation. North Carolina, for instance, is in the midst of approving legislation to raise the maximum alcohol content of beer from 6% to 15% (http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/summaries/reader/0%2C1854%2C577647%2C00.html) . Anything over the local limit is classified and regulated like liquor rather than beer, in spite of the lack of distillation. Just something to also keep in mind. Al 13:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

mixed beers

apart for the last catch all category, specialty beers, all these types are as far as I know traditional brewing methods. The only difference is that they're not pilsners. Anybody got a good reason to keep them? Henna 23:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I personally would consider everything in the "mixed beers" category differences of *ingrediants* or *process*, not of the yeast. The master style is always determined by yeast type, either top-flocculating (ale) or bottom-flocculating (pilsner). "Hybrids" in fact may not be worth mentioning, as its usually just using a yeast in a non-traditional brewing process (e.g. California Common or "steam" beer, lager yeast fermented at near ale temperatures; alt beers or kolsch beers, ale yeast that is fermented with a cold-conditioning process). It's debateable whether we need to get this technical, at least without going off on the myriad of lager / ale styles. --Soundwave106 00:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bottom-fermenting yeast is Lager yeast. Pilsner is a style of lager. Al 13:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Picture

The main picture on this page might cause some confusion. It is a pint of lager but it is a glass labelled Tetley's, which purports to be a bitter although I have another name for it. Jooler 11:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The caption says nothing about being a lager or an ale... can you tell just by looking at it? —Sean κ. ⇔ 16:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course. You must be an American, where all beer looks the same. The main point of what I said was that it is clearly not a pint of Tetley's Jooler 18:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

So now the picture has been replaced with something that could be washing up liquid in a glass. I'll have to take my own picture Jooler 17:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I've just used what is available between en.wp and the commons; if you have a better picture/caption, please feel free to replace it. Dewet 18:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trouble in beerland

I can see there are numerous points of confusion here as non-brewers attempt to explain the brewing process.

One major gaffe - the Morton Coutts continuous brewing process should be a very minor footnote on alternative brewing processes. Apparently the Coutts fan club is active on Wikipedia. I have read a total of 3 papers on this N.Z. process in the past 12 years and all indicated unaddressed problems with the method. Namely excessive fusel production (off flavor volatiles) and systemic sanitation problems preventing commecrially viable long operation times. I do not believe that Guinness or any other major Northern hemishere brewery has ever relied on any continuous process for production.

There are numerous differences between lager beers and ales. The primary difference (already noted) is the yeast used. Yeasts used for ales include many varients of Saccaromyces cerevisiae selected for their brewing properties. The modern taxonomy, based on recent genetic studies, have caused lager yeast to be classified as Saccharomyces pastorianus. This is the fourth or fifth reclassification or re-naming for lager yeasts since the 1970s, but perhaps the most definitive. The names "Saccharomyces uvarum", and "Saccaromyces cerevisiae var. uvarum" are no longer accepted, although these still appear in many non-technical publications. The other major difference is that lager beers are fermented at generally much cooler temperatures and then stored, or "lagered" for some period. California Common style beers (aka Steam Beer, for example 'Anchor Steam' of San Francisco) is made using a single carefully selected lager yeast which is capable of fermenting without excessive off-flavor byproducts at a higher temperature than is typical of lager yeast. One comment here, that beers made from lager yeast at elevated temperatures would taste aweful, is generally correct. Ale yeasts cannot grow at typical lager fermentation temperatures.

German Weizen beers (and many American wheats and belgian style 'Wit' or white beers) beers are fermented with strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (ale yeast) which is able to produce a flavor active product call 4-vinyl guiaicol from a minor organic acid in grain (ferulic acid). This product gives a spicey flavor often described as "clove-like". Bottle conditioned weizens are often refermented with a different yeast. Weizen beers are ales. As an aside weizen is said to have greater sales in Southern Germany than lager beer ! Kristallweizen and Berliner Weiss are wheat beers that deserve separate coverage.

Despite one comment here, water is critically important in beer's historic development and production. The mash procedure isn't merely a matter of washing malt extract free from crushed malt, but instead involves stepping the mash through temperature ranges which allow various enzymes to act on the malt and make sugars and amino acids (among other things) available in the wort. The activity of enzymes is critically dependent on the pH (acidity) of the mash. Adding conventional amounts of light colored malt to distilled water achieves a reasonable mash pH, however if hard water is used the pH will remain too high (too basic) for a successful mash. Darker roasted malt and dark roast (unmalted) barley can be added to the hard water mash to overcome the buffering and lower the mash pH. This fact is reflecting in all sorts of traditional beer styles from Plzen, Munich, Dortmund, London and Dublin (to name a few) where the hardness of local water is reflected in the amount of roast malt (and therefore color) in the local traditional beer. Modern breweries can control mash pH with acid additions or other measures to reduce hardness (the comment that reverse osmosis is used for commercial brewing is dubious, it's a very expensive and wasteful process on commercial scale). Biological acidulation of the mash (using acetic acid bacteria) has been used where Reinheitsgebot prohibits direct acid additions. Aside from hardness, iron, nickle and a few other minerals may add an unattractive flavor or inhibit fermentation and these must be controlled in brewing water.

Reinheitsgebot, although it is nominally a food purity law, seems to have been devised with altogether different motives. This law was primarily about fixing beer prices for various venues at various times of year, and assigned penalties for over-charging. The restriction to barley, hops and water may also have made to prevent the use of wheat for brewing. Other contemporaneous central European laws prohibited the use of wheat for purposes other than bread making. It appears that wheat beers were sufficiently popular to cause supply problems for bread production. The Reinheitsgebot was extended as an economic concession to Bavaria for joining Bismark's 1871 German Unification. This had the unfortunate effect of decimating historical regional beer styles . More recent varients on German beer laws permitted other (non-barley) malted grains, and sugar adjunct in top fermented beers(ales), but not in lagers. This explains German weizen, wheat based ales. Because (until EU regulations changed matters) unmalted grains were not permitted in German beers, this created a market for chit-malts; grains which were so minimally malted that they were effectively raw kilned grains. To say that Reinheitsgebot is controversion is a vast understatement.

Budwieser

I have a real problem with one of the lines in this article, there is a line discussing pilsner, and the example of pilsner given is Budwieser. Normally I would have changed this, however there is some discussion to actually be had about this. Here's the thing. If a person were to ask a beer aficianado of a brewer about budwieser, they might say that it is a example of a Lager, however not a classic example of a Pilsner.

I hate to be a beer snob, but I have to play the card, in the beer world Budwieser is looked down upon, primarily because the beer was copied from a well established beer from Austria.

I am really looking for approval before I go ahead and modify. I think if we are going to talk about specific types of Lagers, there should be more than just a brief article about pilsner. It should be more in depth. Ales too. I'm actually going to change it now that I am thinking about it. I'm switching Budwieser to Pilsner Urquell. here is why, the Czech beer Pilsner Urquell is well known throughout the world as a CLASSIC example of a Pilsner. It come from the town where the varietal was developed and is well known, where Budweiser is only well known in America because as far as I can tell in my travels it is not well recieved by Europeans (this coming from an American who is well traveled.)

Any objections can post fwiw,

Agreed. Pilsner Urquell does taste a lot more "typical" of all the beers labelled Pilsner I've drunk. Budweiser, by contrast, tastes like dishwater. :) --Robert Merkel

Doesn't Budweiser take it's name from the Czech beer Budvar (called Czechvar in the US), and not from an Austrian source? Also, I have seen ads in which Pilsner Urquell claims to be the first pilsner, because it comes from the Czech town of Plzen; hence the name pilsner. So I also concur. --zmbe

No. Budweiser was first marketed in 1876; Ceske Budejovice, the brewery which makes Budvar, didn't exist until 1895. Anheuser-Busch had at tht point been mrketing "Budweiser" fo rnerly 20 years. Both beers take their name from the Czech town of "Budweiss". Over the years a complicated series of lawsuits agreements, the first in 1911, resulted in Anheuser Busch retaining exclusive rights to the "Budweiser" name, except in wha is now the Czech Republic.

Pilsner Urquell was not by any means the "first" pilsner, though they may have been the first to bother to secure legal rights to the name.

And BTW, Budweiser /is/ a pilsner-lager -- of aa sort anyway. The style has undergone a lot of permutations in the US over the years, and is really more properly refered to as "American Light Lager" (not to be confused with Miller Lite, or othe lo-calorie beers). American Light Lagers diverge considerably from the original Pilsners, but they are nonetheless directly descended from them. -- [Dr H]

"The brewing industry is now a huge global business"

Of course it's true that brewing is a large global business. However, this sentence by itself, without any mention of home or craft brewing or of brewpubs, might give the impression that beer is strictly big business, not a realm for hobbyists. Some mention of the popularity of microbrewing at least might be called for.

Agreed, though I'd guess that all the microbrewers combined still represent a small fraction of the world's beer market. --Robert Merkel 15:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Significance of Dry and Light beers"

There is a lot of commercial brandong of beers as "dry" or "light" among other things. What do these mean? The article says nothing about these. Perhaps a short summary of these terms in the article would be useful.

Australasian ?!

What the heck is "Australasian"? I've never heard that term.

Aren't Australia and the Pacific Islands generally called "Oceania"? Al 15:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Australasia. ;) --Veratien 00:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Added to World Cuisine Category

As beer independently spread throughout the world and it fits the category description. --Rakista 20:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Medieval Monks

Why no mention, in the history of the beers, of medieval monks?

What would you like to say about medieval monks? --FOo 06:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"Ale" vs. "Beer"

The Etymology section ends with the following observation: "Today ale has become to mean top-fermented brews and beer the bottom-fermented products."

This is wholly counter to my personal experience, which includes 15 years of beer geekery and 10+ years of homebrewing. Here in the U.S., at least, most beer consumers do not make a distinction between "beer" and "ale." Uneducated beer consumers are unfamiliar with the nuances of what would make a beer an "ale," and therefore simply refer to all beers as "beer," while educated beer consumers would consider "ale" to be a subset of "beer," rather than a distinct and seperate entity. Educated beer consumers might make the distinction between "ale" and "lager," but I don't know of any beer geek (and I know a lot of beer geeks) who would make a distinction between "ale" and "beer."Extreme Unction 12:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that the vast majority of beer drinkers in the U.S. think all beer is like the pilsner-style swill foisted on us by the megabrewers since the passage of the 21st. They also think that "ale" is something slightly different, perhaps a quaint term from the medieval period, and is not exactly what they would consider beer. But, as you and I and every beer geek knows, ale is just top-fermenting yeast and lager is bottom-fermenting. It may be that some people at least passingly familiar with the advent of micro- and craft brews would consider ale a more sophisticated beverage. "Construction workers drink beer. I drink ale." It may also be that people in the U.S. just would never call anything a lager. It's a much less familiar term than ale. Al 15:57, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

While I do not disagree in a general sense with your analysis, I believe you may be overstating the case. My experience with the crowd of folks who considers draining a keg of Bud Light at a frat party to be the pinnacle of the beer drinking experience suggests that many (perhaps most?) are vaguely aware that "ale" is "some kind of beer," without knowing the precise details. To the extent that they differentiate beers at all (and most don't, because their consumption habits simply never bring them into a situation where a distinction would be necessary), they often distinguish between "beer" and "dark beer," again without understanding the nuances. I know many casual drinkers of Bud-esque products who assert that they don't like "dark beer." (Which is like saying saying they don't like "yellow fruit," since "dark" is not a flavor. But I digress.)

yeah, as a homebrewer and beer enthusiast, i'm kinda scratching my head when i see you say "ale" and "beer" are two separate things. ale and LAGER are two separate types of BEER, you feel me? if you're the joe-average alcoholic, you may only know how to drink cheap lager, and thus ale is something entirely alien to you. however, this does not change the fact that ale is a type of beer, lager being the other type. that said, there are beers brewed in an in-between fashion (lager yeast at ale temperatures, beer fermented with both top- and bottom-fermenting yeast). regardless, it's shear nonsense to speak of beer and ale being separate. also, those that don't know what ale is probably wouldn't know how it differs from lager, so it's irrelevant even to the uninformed.

But these are simply my experiences, and may not be universal. Which is why I've started this topic on the talk page rather than simply editing the main page. I am not happy with the "Ale" vs. "Beer" distinction in the etymology section, but I'm not certain how it should be changed, or even that it should be changed at all. Extreme Unction 16:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I think taking out the last sentence ("Today ale has become to mean top-fermented brews and beer the bottom-fermented products.") in that paragraph doesn't detract at all. To me, it doesn't even fit in with the paragraph and looks like it was added later. I say take out that sentence altogether. Al 13:06, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned saying "Today ale has become to mean top-fermented brews and beer the bottom-fermented products." - is just total nonsense. Perhaps the confusion results from the term real ale, which is used to refer to traditional cask conditioned beers. Real ale is beer, pale ale is beer, brown ale is beer. It is better to say that the former formal distinction between unhopped ales and hopped beers has all but disappeared as unhopped brews are now seldom seen and beer and ale have become synonymous. Jooler 08:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading two very interesting books about beer recently. I'm in the middle of the second one.

• Man Walks into a Pub by Pete Brown (2003, MacMillan)
• Beer: The Story of the Pint by Martyn Cornell (2003, Headline)

Its clear from the second book that (in Britain at least) from about the late 17th century the the distinction between beer and ale was becomming blurred. Ale brewers were beginning to use hops for the very sound economical reason that it meant their product had a longer life. They were just using fewer hops that beer brewers. I think it's safe to say that the terms are now synonymous. Jooler 08:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

First photo

I would send that "regular glass of lager beer" (or whatever it said) back and get it topped up. Shouldn't the photo have a normal amount of head on? Slizor 16:49, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and its also not a 'regular mug' - I haven't seen that kind of glass in use for Lager -anywhere- in Europe I've been to... --Kiand 16:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Starch does not ferment, redux

• The opening paragraph mentioned that beer was made from fermenting starches which, as observed earlier in the talk page, is bogus. Sugars ferment, not starches. I've tried to make this a bit more clear. Extreme Unction 13:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Syria

An anonymous user keeps trying to change the second paragraph to indicate that Syria is the birthplace of beer. Can anyone cite a source for that? You can call me Al 16:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I have also reverted one of the Syria edits. It has the faint whiff of misguided nationalism about it. Every brewing historian I'm aware of cites Sumeria and/or Egypt as the birthplace of beer. Extreme Unction 17:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

From Michael Jackson's Beer Companion, "In the Museum Magazine of Archeology and Anthropology produced by the University of Pennsylvanis, Professor Solomon Katz in 1986 described as 'the world's oldest recipe' a series of tablets in the Sumerian language. These early accounts, with pictograms of what is recognizably barley, show bread being baked, then crumbled into water to make a mash, which is then made into a drink that is recorded as having made people feel "exhilarated, wonderful and blissful." The book also has an interesting theory that cultivating barley to make beer was the reason civilization started. Kidvicious 02:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fungus vs Microorganism

Someone recently changed "Yeast is a fungus that is responsible for fermentation" to use "microorganism" instead, on the grounds that fungus is unappealing. I'm inclined to change it back. If we were writing an article in a fluffy magazine, I'd use "microorganism". But since this is a work of reference, I'm inclined to favor accuracy over appeal. Any objections? --William Pietri 17:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If only one word can be used, I think "microorganism" is marginally more accurate than "fungus". The fact that microscopic entities are munching on the sugar is, to me, a more relevant observation for the brewing process than the observation that yeast is a fungus.

However, I suspect it's possible to rewrite the entry so that both words are used, thus achieving ever greater plateaus of accuracy. Extreme Unction 18:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Oil from brow?

Excellent article but couldn't fathom this: "This is the same reaction as would happen if you found yourself with too much foam and used the oil from your brow to dissolve it." --Tatty 10:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I was taught that as a kid with warmer cola that foamed too much after pouring. I would never do it with beer, though. --Elliskev 14:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wording

We should try to use wording as simple as reasonably possible. Thus IMO:

"Drinking less than one drink in women and two drinking in men of alcohol is associated"

is better than

"Consumption of small quantities of alcohol (less than one drink in women and two in men) is associated"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not simple English wikipedia. This article includes the word consume 5 times and mainstream sources like NYTimes and nydailynews use the phrasing. I'm not interested in discussing something so minor further, but I suggest you be less cavalier with your copyedits and use edit summaries.Dialectric (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

We should still be writing for a general audience and there was nothing wrong with that wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"(less than one drink in women and two in men)" doesn't make much sense. Does it mean "(zero drinks for women and one for men)"?Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The first option suggested is nonsense. Has User:Doc James been drinking? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

There are half drinks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What a relief. It's only half nonsense. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The wording "Consumption of small quantities of alcohol (less than one drink in women and two in men) is associated..." is better as it avoids the ambiguity. The 'drinking.. in men.. of alcohol is..' structure of Doc James' wording is also pretty grammatically painful.Dialectric (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no way I'd ever call that pretty. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"Beer was spread throughout the ancient world, particularly in ancient Greece - after about 700 BC. e. One of the earliest written mention of beer found in Xenophon (V century BC. e.). Having been in one of the villages of ancient Armenia, he wrote:

There is also stored wheat, barley, vegetables and barley wine in the craters. The level with the edges of the vessels in the wine swam barley and it was stuck cane large and small sizes, but without the caper; who wanted to drink, I had to take a cane in his mouth and pull it through the wine. Not mixed with water, the wine was very strong, but for people familiar it was a very pleasant drink. - Anabasis, Book 4, Chapter 5 In ancient Armenian beer is usually prepared from barley, hence the name of the drink - GAREJOUR (arm գարեջուր, ie "barley water".)"

add please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.87.224.112 (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2015

1.39.14.174 (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)This discusses in brief about the main process involved in a brewing industry. Beer is produced from the malt. Germinated barley is known as malt. This malt is Grinded to obtain the extract from it. Grinded malt with water is heated with rice flakes & other chemicals in the mash kettle to extract the maltose. Then is filtered through lauter tun to obtain the clear solution. This solution is then heated to boil with sugar and other chemicals; this solution is known as wort. This wort is further transferred to the fermentation section for fermentation process takes place and which converts sucrose into alcohol and carbon dioxide. When desired level of alcohol concentration is obtain the contents of fermenter are subjected to full chilling, which stops the fermentation process and contents are transferred to the lagering section. Lagering is the maturation of beer and the down settlement of the yeast. This beer is known as green beer. The green beer is then filtered through the filter press and carbonated and stored in the Bright Beer Tanks. Now the beer is ready for the filling.

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Beer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027063059/http://www.beer-brewing.com/apex/beer_chapters/ch06_beer_adjuncts.htm to http://www.beer-brewing.com/apex/beer_chapters/ch06_beer_adjuncts.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027063059/http://www.beer-brewing.com/apex/beer_chapters/ch06_beer_adjuncts.htm to http://www.beer-brewing.com/apex/beer_chapters/ch06_beer_adjuncts.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

These two are the same - combine links? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2016

Problem Description: There is a redundant series of sentences in the article. Long strings of words are repeated verbatim in a close proximity to each other.

Problem Area: The problem exists at the end of the second paragraph of the "Long-Term Effects" paragraph.

Problem Excerpt:

   Alcoholism reduces a person's life expectancy by around ten years[162] and alcohol use is the third leading cause of early death in the United States.[158] No professional medical association recommends that people who are nondrinkers should start drinking wine.[158][163] A total of 3.3 million deaths (5.9% of all deaths) are believed to be due to alcohol.[164] Alcoholism often reduces a person's life expectancy by around ten years.[162] Alcohol use is the third leading cause of early death in the United States.[158]

Suggested Edit: As you have probably noticed after reading the above expert, the phrases "Alcoholism reduces a person's life expectancy by around ten years" and "alcohol use is the third leading cause of early death in the United States" are repeated. Although I leave the actual consolidation of the paragraph up to a more experienced editor, I suggest one of the occurrences of these phrases in question be removed.

Proper Edit Request Format: Please change the following

   Alcoholism reduces a person's life expectancy by around ten years[162] and alcohol use is the third leading cause of early death in the United States.[158] No professional medical association recommends that people who are nondrinkers should start drinking wine.[158][163] A total of 3.3 million deaths (5.9% of all deaths) are believed to be due to alcohol.[164] Alcoholism often reduces a person's life expectancy by around ten years.[162] Alcohol use is the third leading cause of early death in the United States.[158]

To the following (simply remove the last two sentences)

   Alcoholism reduces a person's life expectancy by around ten years[162] and alcohol use is the third leading cause of early death in the United States.[158] No professional medical association recommends that people who are nondrinkers should start drinking wine.[158][163] A total of 3.3 million deaths (5.9% of all deaths) are believed to be due to alcohol.[164]

Very Respectfully,

Brian Tracy (brian dot tracy thirty-three at gmail dot com)

Fix beer article (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. And, thank you. ChamithN (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Beer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hopsteiner.com/isopg1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002104412/https://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/consultationresponse/summrespvegi.pdf to http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/consultationresponse/summrespvegi.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091217014231/http://www.schorschbraeu.de/schorschbraeu/site/ to http://www.schorschbraeu.de/schorschbraeu/site/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Second archive link works but not useful, hopsteiner.com link no longer finds page. First archive link seem to work. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)