Adjuncts acceptable now?

No.

At least, not all of them are. The term "adjuncts" as it applies to brewing is often misused to mean "other ingredients" in general. But, that is not what the term means. An adjunct is a non-malt source of fermentable sugars. So, spices, coffee, etc. are not adjuncts. Oats, rice, unmalted barley, maple syrup etc., are adjuncts. The fruit could be, if it is used as a source of fermentable sugars.

 

It seems adjuncts are acceptable now: I recently noticed how Budweiser is touting its use of rice.

Before long, "Joe Six Pack" will be telling everyone how he doesn't like beer without rice in it.

 

This topic will be nerd-level hairsplitting to the Nth degree. I realize that the term "adjunct" is generally used as a negative around here, but, I do see coffee, maple, spices, fruit, et al, as adjuncts.

Maybe if it's one of "our" breweries using adjuncts, it's OK, but, if one of "theirs" does, it's not?

 

If it is not malt and is eaten by yeast, it's an adjunct. If it isn't, it isn't. I wouldn't call that "nerd level" to any degree. It is a simple definition.

 

I don't think adjuncts themselves were ever not accepted since that would rule out even classic styles like oatmeal/milk stouts, every type of wheat or rye beer, every beer that used fruit in fermentation, etc. I think it was specifically the macro adjunct lagers that were frowned upon for the obvious reasons.

Edit: I forgot to include braggots in my list! I had completely forgotten about the style. I feel like I haven't had one in many years--maybe Weyerbacher's anniversary braggot several years ago? Can braggots come into style please? Maybe replace some of the thirteen billion fruited kettle sours out there?

Second Edit: Ah, it was Weyerbacher's 16th Anniversary beer that was a braggot in the long-long-ago of 2011.

 

A quick look at dictionary.com tells me that an "adjunct" is something added to something but not required for it.

Thus, nerd-level hairsplitting. Are bourbon, coffee, mango, whatever, "required" to make beer? IMHO, no.

 

I don't think what OP mentions fit the definition of adjuncts, but I'm positive there's a double standard in how macro and micros are judged in whatever category

 

I'm holding out for the NE IPA classification to be changed to American Adjunct IPA.

That actually would be awesome, just to see the collective freakout.

 

Adjuncts were originally called "malt adjuncts" and were substances added to the grist which used the enzymes in the malt to extract fermentable sugars.
They enabled the use of poor quality continental malts which did not give sufficiently clear brews.
The term has been relaxed to include fermentable additions but certainly not flavourings

 

As an afterthought,rice was used in Germany to dilute the nitrogen content of the malt available. This spread to the US ,not because it was cheaper - it was more expensive- but so local barley could be used. Other brewers used corn or potatoes.
British brewers used sugar after 1840, not of course refined white sugars but ones with lovely flavours still in them. A properly brewed mild using #3 or #4 brewing sugars remains my favourite beer.
Sugar would not have been regarded as an adjunct then but nowadays it is often treated as one.

 

Not exactly "new" for Anheuser-Busch to highlight the rice in Budweiser.


They started noting their use of rice on the Budweiser label sometime in the early 1900s and Adolphus Busch discussed it in front of Congress during 1902's Pure Food Hearings:

 

They were never unacceptable.

 

Context is everything.

What does "static" mean?

Well, are you listening to the radio, describing an object, doing laundry... ?

 

In particular, words used in a brewing context are often jargon. When a brewer talks about "liquor" he means water. When he talks about adjuncts he does not mean the same thing as a grammarian.It has a specific meaning to serve his purposes.
Much of the misunderstanding about brewing has arisen from not realising this.Everything from "starting" a cask to "barrel" has a specific interpretation unlike the everyday use.

 

so is sugar an adjunct (used to boose alcohol and keep mouthfeel lighter and dry)?

 

That doesn't really make sense. what makes it adjunct? And if my question above is a yes, then actually most west coast DIPAs would be the american adjunct IPA.

 

Definitions aside why wouldn't adjuncts be ok? If a beers good it's good, it doesn't need to get any more complicated than that, at least IMO.

 

Technically not in the original sense of requiring enzymes to provide fermentables. But loosely it sometimes is accepted as one by many users.
The original meaning was because malt has excess enzymes and many ingredients need these to set free their sugars they go together ,each needs the other. Not just added ingredients.

 

Many of them have oats or wheat for mouthfeel.