Beer Syndicate Blog

Shamelessly Promoting Beer

Author: Daniel J. Leonard Page 12 of 22

BJCP Entrance Exam Mock Practice Test

Welcome to the BJCP Entrance Exam Mock Practice Test presented to you by the good fellas at BeerSyndicate.com.

The BJCP Entrance Exam Mock Practice Test is designed to better prepare you for the online BJCP Entrance Exam and to provide practical training using the Beer Style Compare-O-Matic, which is simply the most effective free resource for the actual exam.

Compare-O-Matic Screen Shot

Both the difficulty of the questions and time limit on this practice test are very similar to the actual online BJCP Entrance Exam.  However, the focus of this practice test is strictly related to knowledge of the 2015 BJCP Beer Style Guidelines, an area that makes up approximately 50-60% (or more) of the actual Entrance Exam.

Just like on the actual online BJCP Entrance Exam, the questions on this practice test are either true-false, multiple-choice, or multiple-choice/multiple-answer.

If you have not done so already, please review the How to Pass the Online BJCP Entrance Exam Tutorial to familiarize yourself with what you need to know to be successful on the exam over all.

Good luck.

BJCP Entrance Exam Mock Practice Test


Like this post?  Well, thanks- we appreciate you!  

Tweet-worthy?  That would be kind of you:

Want to read more beer inspired thoughts?  Come back any time, friend us on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter:

Or feel free to drop me a line at: dan@beersyndicate.com

Hi, I’m Dan: Beer Editor for BeerSyndicate.com, Beer and Drinking Writer, Gold Medal-Winning Homebrewer, Beer Reviewer, AHA Member, Beer Judge, Beer Traveler, and Shameless Beer Promoter with a background in Philosophy and Business.

A Guinness Beer Review: From West Indies Porter to Guinness Potato Chips

Guinness Beer Review

Craft beer drinkers sometimes have mixed feelings about Guinness.

For some, Guinness was that gateway beer that led them into the world of craft.  For others, Guinness was a welcome reprieve from the water-forward Bud, Miller, Coors triopoly that dominated the dismal U.S. beer marketplace for decades.  And for many of us, Guinness is simply the iconic dry Irish stout, a beer synonymous with St. Patrick’s Day and even Ireland itself.

At the same time, Guinness isn’t craft beer.  It’s one brand among many owned by the multinational alcoholic beverage company Diageo headquartered in London.  A brand that’s lost market share in recent years not necessarily because it’s not craft, but because the craft beer movement has effectively diversified consumer tastes.

And let’s face it: Guinness Draught isn’t exactly your Kentucky Brunch Brand Stout American Double ale.

But instead of bashing craft like some hypocritical macro juggernauts, Guinness dug deep, embraced its 200-plus-year tradition of brewing, and gave beer lovers something new.  Not a new nitro widget-y gizmo.  Not a re-brand of the same old thing.  But rather a variety of offerings from unearthed historic recipes over two centuries old along with a crack at some popular beer styles of today.

For this beer review, we check out recent Guinness releases now available state-side, give a quick glance to the classics, and even get down with some Guinness-flavored potato chips (spoiler alert: Guinness murders it on the potato chip front).

The Brewers Project™ Review

Guinness The Brewers Project

According to Guinness, The Brewers Project™ is “a group of enterprising brewers on a quest to explore new recipes, reinterpret old ones and collaborate freely to bring exciting new ideas to life.”

For Guinness’ inaugural release, the brewery assembled a variety pack of historical porters including a West Indies Porter, Dublin Porter, and Guinness Original.

Here’s the rundown:

West Indies PorterWest Indies Porter: Of the three releases in the Guinness sample pack, West Indies Porter is the clear champion in terms of overall balance, flavor, and complexity, earning a score of 89/100. The beer pours a rocky tan head with an aroma of malt, coco powder, vague black licorice, tropical coffee bean, sweet tobacco, burnt marshmallow, tamarind pod, and a hint of caramel. The flavor is a rich, complex, malty mix of semi-sweet chocolate, cold coffee, burnt malt, cola, walnuts, dark molasses with a medium-full body and an aftertaste of roasted malt and chocolate-covered raisins.

The West Indies Porter recipe dates back to 1801 when Guinness first began exporting their porter across the globe. It’s the predecessor of today’s Foreign Extra Stout, and was brewed with more hops to preserve the beer during sea voyages of four-to-five weeks in tropical climes.

Guinness Original LabelGuinness Original:  Described as “the closest variant to Arthur Guinness’s original stout recipe… first introduced in Dublin around 1800’s as a premium porter, this blast from the past is currently sold in the U.K. as “Guinness Original” and is different from Guinness Draught popular around the word.   In a side-by-side taste test, Guinness Original offered more character earning a score of 86/100 and was favored over the Guinness Draught (bottle).

The porter pours coffee black, developing a quickly fading rocky, deep khaki head that kicks up aromas of malt chocolate and roasted malt. Although a bit thin in body, the medium carbonation sharpens the semi-sweet flavors of dark roasted grain, cocoa, cola, and light coffee.

Guinness Dublin Porter LabelDublin Porter: The inspiration for this porter recipe dates back to Guinness archival brewing notes from 1796, and was brewed by Arthur Guinness to be shipped to England in the late 1790s.

Something of a session porter with an ABV of 3.8%, the beer pours a thick finger of dark tan head, revealing aromas of whipped heavy cream and chocolate chip cookie dough. The flavor offers notes of dark malt, mild roasty bitterness, watered-down diet cola, semisweet chocolate, burnt sugar, volcanic rock, whipped cream, walnut skins, with a thin, crisp mouthfeel and medium-high carbonation.  75/100

Conclusion: The West Indies Porter is a real treat and the Guinness Original was preferred over the Guinness Draught (bottled).  Even though the Dublin Porter isn’t a flavor powerhouse, it’s still fun to try historic beers with old-timey vintage labels from one of the most iconic breweries in the world.

Guinness Nitro IPA and Guinness Blonde American Lager

Guinness IPAGuinness Nitro IPA: Released in September of 2015 as a follow-up from The Brewers Project™, this is Guinness’ first attempt at an IPA, albeit an English-style IPA, not an aggressively hopped American IPA.  Nevertheless, the beer scored only a 70/100 due to its lack of carbonation which tends to under-accentuate both the malt and hop character in the flavor to a fault.

The highlights of this IPA are in the appearance and aroma. The brew pours a super smooth and creamy head that you’d expect from a Guinness nitro beer, and the aroma is inviting and mellow with floral, woody, piney, and perhaps vaguely minty hop characteristics with a hint of butterscotch pudding.  From the first taste, it’s clear that the beer is decidedly flat, conveying a creamy, pine-like character with a medium-sweet, toasted malt presence. 

Even though Guinness indicates 44 IBUs in this IPA, because of the overall flatness, the perceived bitterness seems much less.  You might detect some minty notes in the flavor (think lickable postage stamps), white pepper, and even a twig-like woody character.  The after taste is somewhat fruity, like fruit cocktail syrup.

IMG_0060Guinness Blonde American LagerIf Guinness was attempting a watered-down, training-wheel IPA with their Nitro IPA, this American blonde goes in the opposite direction and delivers on all fronts, giving depth to a beer style that is otherwise often considered rather boring.  Earning an 87/100, this blonde pours a brilliant, deep golden color, with mild estery aromatics of stone fruit (peach and dried apricot).  The flavor is pleasant with a moderately hopped backbone that lends a supportive bitterness, balancing an angel food cake-like malty character.  A medium-bodied blonde with a smooth mouthfeel, you might detect some notes of peach, faint pineapple, and a touch of pith in the flavor, finishing with some mild yeast character in the aftertaste.    

Guinness Blonde American Lager is the first release of what Guinness called its “Discovery Series”, and what we’ve discovered is that Guinness stepped up its game and delivered a bigger flavor profile than expected from a blonde, yet still managed to stay within the delicate style guidelines.

Guinness The 1759 in a glassGuinness The 1759Named to commemorate the year Arthur Guinness took over an abandoned brewery, scoring that gonga 9,000-year lease for an annual rent of only £45 (talk about rent control), “The 1759” is Guinness’ first limited edition offering from its so-called Signature Series to take a stab at the high-end luxury beer market with a 750 ml bottle retailing for about $35.  This self-described “ultra-premium beer” was brewed in limited quantities (90,000 bottles) at the end of 2014, and makes use of peated whiskey malt and Guinness’ original yeast strain to create a “traditional amber ale” weighing in at a noticeable 9% ABV.

To be clear, this beer is nothing like what you’d expect from an American amber ale, and that’s because it’s not an American amber ale or like any other “amber” on the market.

Guinness The 1759As Guinness points out on the back label: “Before mastering the stout & porter for which his St. James’s Gate Brewery became famous, Arthur Guinness was renowned for his amber ales.  Inspired by this we proudly introduce Guinness® The 1759™ a traditional amber ale brewed using both peated whiskey malt and premium beer malt.”

Ignoring the fact that the U.S. wasn’t even a nation in 1759, or that American ambers don’t use peated whiskey malt as an ingredient,  the last big clue that this isn’t your run-of-the-mill, humdrum American amber is that big 9% ABV.

So if this beer isn’t anything like an American amber, what is it like?

Well, you might compare it to an aged English Barelywine, or Scottish strong ale, but it’s probably closer to a well-crafted Belgian Dark Strong Ale.  Appearance-wise, The 1759 pours a cloudy cola colored body which develops a beautiful two fingers of thick frothy tan head that lasts and lasts — sort of a hallmark of the Guinness name.

From the aroma, you might pick up on hints of raisin, brown sugar, malt, granola bar, toffee, tamarind, macadamia nuts, Grape Nuts, rye, spiced rum, prunes, bread dough, toasted oatmeal and mild vanilla. The flavor is malty rich with notes of molasses, mild raisin, dates, toffee, lactose, bread dough, toasted cocoa nibs, rum barrel, and a warming alcohol that balances the sweetness of this thick, full-bodied ale.

Conclusion: Again, this is not an American Amber ale, and it isn’t supposed to be.  So from the prospective of overall enjoyment (since we have no reference to what this beer tasted like in 1759), this brew is outstanding with a score of 92/100.

The Classics: Guinness Draught and Guinness Extra Stout

Guinness Draught… Can vs. Bottle!

Guinness Draght- Can vs. Bottle

Instead of a traditional review of beers most beer drinkers have had at least once or twice in their lifetime, we did a quick side-by-side experiment to see if there were any noticeable differences between Guinness Draught from the can and Guinness Draught from the bottle.

There were.

Guinness Enjoy Straight From the BottleOh right- you should probably know that we did something really naughty.  You know that written commandment on the bottle of Guinness Draught that demands you drink the beer directly from the bottle?  Well, we flagrantly and rebelliously ignored that holy ordnance and instead poured the bottled beer directly into a glass.

May the Guinness gods forgive us, but we found drinking bottled Guinness from a glass to be a far more enjoyable experience than drinking it directly from the bottle for a few reasons: (1) We could actually enjoy the aroma, and (2) we could appreciate the appearance of the beer as well.

And with that, here are the results:

Ok, so a few qualifications:

Guinness Widget

Guinness Widget

1. Guinness Draught from the can wins appearance hands down when it comes to that incredibly thick and creamy, long-lasting head formation thanks to the magic of the little nitrogen widget floating around inside the can. Buuuuut, if you’re splitting a can of Guinness between two people (why would you), only the person who receives the first pour will experience that amazing head display; the second person will only see minimal head formation and retention.

2. That amazing head formation and long lasting retention from the can comes at a price, namely the aroma. That cap of creamy tan head acts as an aroma barrier to the dark beer underneath, so while you might pick up a pleasant whiff of whipped egg whites from that thick layer of form, that’s about all you’ll get. On the other hand, the bottle offers an enjoyable chocolaty, mildly roasty, vaguely coffee ice cream aroma that kicks up as the head fades. Even if you slurp away that layer of head from the canned version, the aroma is still muted because the nitro doesn’t produce as much aromatics as the bottled version.

3. The bottle wins when it comes to flavor mainly because of its comparatively prickly carbonation. Arguably, carbonation is more of a mouthfeel component, but in this case it adds more complexity in the bottled version by emphasizing flavors of baker’s chocolate, roasty malt, and a twang of sourness. To be clear though, both the bottle and the can are very lightly carbonated, basically flat.

Conclusion: If you’re looking for an appealing visual presentation and a more subdued flavor profile, go with the can.  If you’re looking for more steak and less sizzle, go with the bottle.  It also doesn’t hurt that the bottled Guinness Draught costs less than the canned version.  And while you’re at it, you might as well throw caution to the wind and pour the bottled Guinness Draught into a glass.

Guinness Extra Stout in glassGuinness Extra Stout: Another Guinness classic first brewed in 1821 by Arthur Guinness II, this Extra Stout takes the middle ground between Guinness Draught and the most assertive Foreign Extra Stout.  But to think this complex brew is anywhere close in flavor to the mild-mannered, featherweight Guinness Draught would be a mistake.

With sweet notes of oatmeal cookie, brown sugar, sticky chocolate chip granola bar, cookie dough, and a mild savory undertone, the aromatics play coy, offering no real sign of the level dark chocolate, roasty bitterness that lies ahead in the flavor.  The full-bodied taste begins with a bold flavor of bittersweet dark chocolate, but soon develops into a more bitter baker’s chocolate as the sweet gives way to the strong roasted malt character, masking even the modest 5.6% ABV nearly to the finish, and lasting long into the aftertaste.

All that and a Bag of Chips…

Guinness ChipsBurts Guinness Hand Cooked Potato Chips: First, allow us to apologize.  While our beer tasting palates have been refined over more than a decade of evaluating thousands of beers, our food describing abilities are, um, not great.  That said, here’s what we thought about Guinness-flavored potato chips, or “crisps” as they’re known around the U.K. 

“Yum.  Good.  Me like. More. 90/100 on the potato chip scale.”

Yeah… so the chips sort of disappeared before we could get all our notes down…  Suffice it to say, they were yum-yum good.

And on that note, happy St. Pat’s Day, and as the Irish say, Sláinte!

[BeerSyndicate received no compensation of any kind from Guinness Ltd. or any other party to produce this article.]


Like this review?  Well, thanks- you’re far too kind.  

Tweet-worthy?  That would be very kind of you:

Want to read more beer inspired thoughts?  Come back any time, friend us on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter:

Or feel free to drop me a line at: dan@beersyndicate.com

Hi, I’m Dan: Beer Editor for BeerSyndicate.com, Beer and Drinking Blogger, Gold Medal-Winning Homebrewer, Beer Reviewer, AHA Member, Beer Judge, Beer Traveler, and Shameless Beer Promoter with a background in Philosophy and Business.

 

How Beer Saved the World: The Mystery of Antibiotic Beer Revisited

Back in 2011, the Discovery Channel aired the beer documentary How Beer Saved the World (transcript here), a film that took a look at the origins of beer and also built a case for (spoiler alert) how beer saved the world.

The film fired off one fascinating beer fact after another like how beer was responsible for the start of the agricultural revolution in 9,000 B.C., or how beer built the pyramids of ancient Egypt, saved millions of lives in the Middle Ages, and how beer was to thank for inventions like the wheel, writing, math, and modern medicine, just to name a few.

No doubt, the documentary boasted many a bold claim, but as a beer brewer, I was interested in one claim in particular: a significant amount of tetracycline, a broad-spectrum antibiotic, was discovered in 3,000 year-old Egyptian bones, and the source of that tetracycline was from an ancient beer recipe.

The idea that a modern-day wonder drug like tetracycline was found in 3,000 year-old bones might seem unusual especially considering that tetracycline wasn’t officially discovered and produced by science until 1945 by Benjamin Minge Duggar. 1

But sure enough, Dr. George Armelagos, Professor of Anthropology at Emory University, proved conclusively that there was no mistake; tetracycline was in ancient bones, and in large quantities.

To be clear though, Armelagos was originally testing Sudanese Nubian and Egyptian bones dated between 350 A.D and 550 A.D., and later bones from a Jordanian site dating to the 2nd century B.C., not 3,000 year-old Egyptian bones. 2  Nevertheless, indirect evidence suggests that tetracycline could be found in Egyptian bones going as far back to pre-dynastic (pre-Pharaoh) Egypt (6,000 B.C – 3,100 B.C.). 3

Now, the curious story of how tetracycline was found in an ancient Nubian bone goes like this:

Around 1980, Debra Martin, a grad student of biological anthropology at the University of Massachusetts, was learning how to make thin sections of archaeological bones while visiting a research laboratory at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan.  After manually grinding down a bone fragment from a 4th century ancient Nubian mummy, Martin was preparing to view it under a standard microscope, but only a UV microscope was available.

Coincidentally, researchers in this particular lab were using tetracycline to measure the rate of bone formation because tetracycline tends to bind to calcium and phosphorus in growing bones and will emit a yellow-green fluorescence when exposed to UV light at the 490-nanometer wavelength. 4

Remarkably, when Martin looked at this ancient bone section under the UV microscope, it was emitting a yellow-green fluorescence, just like tetracycline.

Martin returned to the University of Massachusetts where she told Dr. Armelagos about her discovery, and in the fall of 1980, Armelagos, Martin and three other colleagues published their findings. 5

But Armelagos and his colleagues’ work was met with skepticism, so in 2010, he teamed up with medicinal chemist Mark Nelson and after using hydrogen fluoride to first dissolve the bones, they then extracted and finally positively identified the tetracycline through chemical analysis.  No question, tetracycline was definitively in the bones.

Of course the real kicker was that the levels of tetracycline extracted from the bones were so high it suggested that the ancient Nubians and Egyptians were consuming the antibiotic on a regular basis beginning in early childhood and on into old age. 6

Searching for the source of the tetracycline, Armelagos recreated many ancient recipes to no avail.  That was until he finally came across an ancient beer recipe from around that time, brewed it, and, lo and behold, the beer contained significant enough levels of tetracycline to be considered a likely candidate for the source of the antibiotic.

And Now, the Rest of the Story

Of course the documentary How Beer Saved the World left one big fat mystery sitting on the table: what the heck was going on with that ancient beer recipe that it not only produced antibiotics, but produced the antibiotics in such large amounts?

And here’s a scary thought: if ancient brewers were somehow introducing antibiotics into their beer, is it possible that brewers today are doing the same thing and pumping us all full of tetracycline?

Sure, a steady intake of antibiotics might keep us healthy in the short term, but ultimately it could also contribute to the increase of deadly antibiotic-resistant superbugs that might one day wipe mankind off the face of the Earth leading to a follow-up documentary: How Beer Destroyed the World.

But before you call the FDA, let’s examine the facts.

Like modern beer, the ancient antibiotic beer was made with grain. Naturally occurring tetracycline is produced by mold-like (spore-forming) bacteria called Streptomyces, which is common in soil and decaying vegetation, especially in warm arid regions like in ancient Nubia.  If these antibiotic-producing bacteria were to come into contact with grain, and that grain was then used to make beer, tetracycline would be in the final product.

Dr. Armelagos believes that the grains used to make the ancient beer were likely stored in mud bins, and because Streptomyces is commonly found in soil, the grains would have come into contact with the Streptomyces from the mud bins.

Now, even though modern grain is frequently covered with bacteria, it is normally stored in steel silos, not in mud bins.  This reduces the likelihood that modern beer would contain significant amounts of tetracycline.

But the mud bin theory only explains how the grain could have been contaminated, not how it was able to produce so much tetracycline.

For example, when grain covered with the antibiotic-producing bacteria was tested, there were only minimal amounts of tetracycline detected— not nearly the amount that was found in those almost 2,000 year-old bones.  So what gives?

Well, as Emily Sohn pointed out, “only when people fermented the grain would tetracycline production explode.”

But that explanation might leave some brewers scratching their heads, and here’s why: dead bacteria (Streptomyces) don’t produce tetracycline.  Allow me to clarify.

When making beer, malted grains are first soaked in hot water for about an hour.  That hot water extracts sugars from the grain.  The grain is then removed, leaving behind a kind of sugar water that brewers call “wort”.

After that, the wort is typically boiled for an hour or more, and then cooled.  Boiling the wort is key here because the boiling temperature would kill most bacteria, including Streptomyces.  It’s only after the wort is boiled and cooled that primary fermentation takes place.

In other words, if the Streptomyces bacteria are killed off during the boil, they wouldn’t survive to create any tetracycline during fermentation, certainly not the kind of levels of tetracycline found in those ancient bones.

You might then wonder how any tetracycline could be found in beer after Streptomyces-contaminated grain was boiled.  The reason that at least small amounts of tetracycline could remain after being boiled is because tetracycline doesn’t fully decompose until about 338 °F (170 °C), and boiling temperature is about 210 °F (100 °C).  Even pasteurization only seems to minimally reduce tetracycline levels by about 5-6%. 7

So, yes, tetracycline could survive the boil, but the Streptomyces bacteria couldn’t.  And we need that Streptomyces bacteria alive and well to make it to the fermentation process in order to produce the amounts of tetracycline found in those ancient bones.

Oh well- so much for our ancient antibiotic beer.  Eh, except for the fact that Dr. Armelagos and his colleagues were able to reproduce the ancient beer which was teeming with tetracycline, and he’s even had some of his student do it too.

The Secret Formula for Antibiotic Beer

Antibiotic Beer

The first thing you should know about ancient Egyptian beer recipes is that they are not exactly similar to how most beer is typically brewed today.  For example, the process for making Egyptian beer generally began first by making bread, which probably would have been made from emmer (a kind of wheat), spelt or barely grains, and there is evidence to suggest that the grains were malted.

In order to make the bread for an antibiotic beer the way the ancient Egyptians and Nubians seem to have done it, the Streptomyces-contaminated grain would go through a malting process which first begins by germinating the grain.

Anthropology student Amanda Mummert who assisted Dr. Armelagos in his research described the germination procedure like this: “This process is much like how you would do in a fourth-grade germination science project, where the grains would be soaked in water for about 24 hours, drained and then laid between sheets of cloth until they sprouted.”

Germinating the grain causes the starch inside the grain to be converted into sugars by enzymes which conveniently reside within the grain itself.  The grain is eventually dried out which stops the germination process, otherwise the sprouting plant would use up the starches and sugars in the grain needed to make beer.  

The dried grain is now called malt and contains the sugars that are important for making antibiotic beer.  Those sugars are important because they become a food source for the Streptomyces coating the grain to metabolize and convert into tetracycline.

After the grain was dried, it was milled into flour and mixed with water to create dough.  That dough was then left to rise which likely occurred as a result of exposure to naturally occurring yeast in the air.  During this time, the Streptomyces that was on the grain could produce even more tetracycline from the sugars in the fermenting dough.

The dough was then made into partially baked bread, and that bread was later tossed into water and allowed to ferment into beer.  Even modern beer recipes of villagers along the Nile today brew beer in this way, 8 and at least one ancient recipe called for taking three loaves of bread, breaking each piece up into quarters, and placing them into one crock to ferment. (By the way, fermentation is the process by which yeast consumes sugars and converts them into alcohol and CO2, which transforms our bready mush into beer.)

Even if the all of the Streptomyces would have been destroyed as a result of baking the bread, the tetracycline would have already been produced and been present in bread and any beer made from bread that used Streptomyces-contaminated grain.  However, Dr. Armelagos notes that the tetracycline bread was added to a broth of milled Streptomyces-contaminated malt, which would have further increased both the alcohol and tetracycline content.

In fact, Armelagos’ team preformed two experiments: one in which Streptomyces was added to the dough, and one where Streptomyces was added only to the malt broth.  The latter proved more successful, producing significant amounts of tetracycline.

The resulting “beer” may have been strained away from the mushy bread gruel, or simply consumed together in a bowl like a mildly alcoholic lumpy, beer-y soup.

So, as it turns out, the key to making ancient antibiotic beer is the presence of live Streptomyces bacteria during fermentation.  And if one were trying to introduce Streptomyces into beer or bread today (for scientific purposes), it is certainly possible to find the naturally occurring antibiotic-producing bacteria under certain conditions.  However, one could also probably just buy a pure culture of Streptomyces online and add it along with yeast early in the fermentation process (although personally, I generally prefer my beer antibiotic-free).

Final Comments

Although the ancient Egyptians and Nubians probably didn’t fully understand the science behind how antibiotics were being produced in their bread and beer, it does seem that they were aware of the medicinal benefits of such tetracycline-laced beer and used it as a mouth wash to treat diseases of the gums, as a dressing for wounds, as an enema, vaginal douche, and as Armelagos points out, as an anal fumigant where remaining dried grains were burned to create a smoke to treat diseases of the anus (your mileage may vary). 9

And finally, you may have wondered what were the effects of prolonged regular exposure to antibiotics for the ancient Egyptians and Nubians. Did it create a superbug that ended their cultures?  Well, Dr. Armelagos’ team wondered the same thing. “To test this, we have examined the bones in our sample for signs of periosteal reactions— roughened surfaces that form as a result of bone infection.  We have found no evidence that infections became more intense during the centuries represented by the bones, as would be expected if more resistant bacteria had evolved.” 10

To echo the late Paul Harvey: and now you know the rest of the story.

Cheers!



Hi, I’m Dan: Beer Editor for Beer Syndicate, Beer and Drinking Blogger, Gold Medal-Winning Homebrewer, Beer Reviewer, AHA Member, Beer Judge, Shameless Beer Promoter, and Beer Traveler.

References:

1. Cartwright, A. C. (n.d.). The British Pharmacopoeia, 1864 to 2014: Medicines, International Standards, and the State (p. 193).
2, 8, & 10. Armelagos, G.J. (2000). Take Two Beers and Call Me in 1,600 Years . Natural History. Vol. 109/4
3. Mills, J. O. (1992). Beyond Nutrition: Antibiotics Produced through Grain Storage Practices, Their Recognition and Implication for the Egyptian Predynastic
4. Nelson, M., Hillen, W., & Greenwald, R. A. (2001). Tetracyclines in Biology, Chemistry, and Medicine (p. 219). Basel: Birkhauser Verlag.
5. Bassett, E., Keith, M., Armelagos, G., Martin, D., & Villanueva, A. (1980). Tetracycline-Labeled Human Bone from Ancient Sudanese Nubia (A.D. 350). Science, 209(4464), 1532-1534. doi:10.1126/science.7001623
6. 
Nelson, M. L., Dinardo, A., Hochberg, J., & Armelagos, G. J. (2010). Brief Communication: Mass Spectroscopic Characterization of Tetracycline in the Skeletal Remains of an Ancient Population from Sudanese Nubia 350-550 CE. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 143(1), 151-154. doi:10.1002/ajpa.21340
7. Kellnerová, E., Navrátilová, P., & Borkovcová, I. (2015). Effect of Pasteurization on the Residues of Tetracyclines in Milk. Acta Veterinaria Brno Acta Vet. Brno, 83(10). doi:10.2754/avb201483s10s21
9. W.J. Darby, P. Ghalioungi and L. Grivetti, Foor: The Gift of Osiris, 2 volumes, Academic Press, London, 1977.

 

Page 12 of 22

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén