Content
Citation(s) & Footnote(s)
Book(s)No access
Sergey A. Khurshudyan, Konstantin V. Kobelev, Anastasiya E. Ryabova. Food Systems 3(4), 2020, pp. 34–38. Five supplied PDF pages read. Secondary historical/statistical compilation about Russia, the Russian Empire and USSR, NOT the domestic American industry. Original references and statistical series have not been independently obtained.
Coverage: p.34 outlines beverage-origin narratives and early Russian wine history; p.35 continues wine/brandy/brewing/industrial alcohol histories, explains qualification enterprises and presents Tables 1–3 (1913 production, enterprise structure, 1920 contraction); p.36 covers recovery, five-year plans, WWII, postwar growth and post-Soviet changes with Tables 4–6; p.37 covers industry classification, 2010s production and category-change warnings with Tables 7–10; p.38 gives 47 references, three contributor biographies, equal-contribution and conflict statements, received/revised/accepted dates.
Useful principally as a comparative example of long-run industry statistics and their pitfalls. Authors interpret political shocks, wars and recovery through a production narrative. Temporal association is not a causal estimate, and the broad positive-development conclusion does not mean every beverage category grew. Geographic boundaries and statistical categories are not constant across the century.
Do not transfer origin claims into our foundation timeline: John Cor as founder, speculative early Irish dates, Dom Perignon origin story and treatment of pulque/sake among vodkas require independent correction/verification. The article is not primary evidence for first alcohol production or American whiskey development.
Data quality flags requiring visual and original-source checks before numerical reuse: 'dcl' is used in production units and should not silently be converted as a modern SI deciliter; Table 4's wine baseline and unit conflict with adjacent prose and later series, and its beer unit differs from adjacent tables. Table 9 has an abrupt 0.7 to 17.2 sparkling-wine jump; source itself cautions category changes, but does not establish the explanation for this specific discontinuity. Table 2 worker total/percentage and Table 5 comparative figures warrant source checking. Do not repair values by inference. Table 7 is an industry classification, not beverage taxonomy. No clean century-long time series is warranted.
Full text and all ten tables visually reviewed. The printed inconsistencies are genuine source issues, not merely text-extraction errors. Retain as contextual comparative research with cautious scope, not core American history authority.
