Adjuncts acceptable now?

Yeah, that author is quoting from the testimony of William Zeltner (of the Henry Zeltner Brewing Co., in Morrisania section of the Bronx which appears to have gone bankrupt ~1909) during the same set of congressional hearings from which the Adolphus Busch quotes comes - Adulteration of Food Products: Fifty-fifth Congress

(Note that the Zeltner brewery also "signed" that 1881 Letter in the New York Times).

Of his adjunct brew, he testified:

The Chairman. Do you make any other grade of beer besides (the all-malt lager)?
Mr. Zeltner. Yes.
The Chairman. Of lighter color, is it?
Mr. Zeltner. Yes.
The Chairman. What do you use in that?
Mr. Zeltner. I use the best of white corn grits.
The Chairman. Does that make a lighter-colored beer?
Mr. Zeltner. Yes.
The Chairman. You have some customers who prefer that?
Mr. Zeltner. Well, I use it to meet competition. Some customers* want a lighter beer because I can and do give it to them cheaper. The cost of production is less.
* (Likely "customers" refers to saloon owners, rather than beer drinkers, of course).

Zeltner did disagree with many of the other brewing industry representatives during those Pure Food hearings (Zeltner blamed "...scientific stations...under or governed by such gentlemen as Dr. Schwarz and Dr. Wyatt.").

Zeltner further stated his belief that adjuncts were used only for economic reasons:

"I maintain that cereals other than barley malt in the production of lager beer are used for no other purpose than to make a cheaper article. That is easily proven by simply taking a lead pencil and a piece of paper and doing some figuring. (Use of corn)... (m)aking a lighter color to the depreciation of taste. You get a lighter color and probably a greater durability, as some of our chemists say, but you are doing it at the cost of the flavor and the nourishing qualities which malt contains."

The conclusion of the Hearing was:

When the American brewer uses other cereals than barley, they are used in an unmalted state—that is, corn or rice—which gives a lighter color to the beer. It has been charged in a general, unsubstantiated way, by either a witness (likely reference to Zeltner) or through a communication, that these cereals did not produce as healthy a beer as an all-malt beer. But the overwhelming and almost uncontradicted evidence is that the use of corn or rice, for the purposes as stated, is not in the least deleterious to public health, and while the practical brewer, maltsters, chemists, and analytical experts, as well as medical experts, approve the use of the unmalted cereals for the purposes as stated, whenever interrogated on that point, no witness has stated before this committee why the use of corn or rice unmalted, or other unmalted cereals, ought not to be used as it is all over the world.
______

The problem with using the Pure Food hearings as "evidence" was that they were investigating primarily the "adulteration" of beer and the nutritional value of the adjuncts, etc., rather than the primary subject of this thread - taste and popularity.

There is no doubt that the promoters of American adjunct brewing did often note that while the general beer drinking population preferred the lighter beers which adjunct brewing allowed (even when the brewers themselves didn't*), using corn in particular ALSO benefited the brewer because corn - but not rice - was typically cheaper than malted barley.

*like Joseph Liebmann (of Leibmann Brewing Co., "Rheingold"):
I will say that for ten or twelve years I have advocated only the use of malt and hops. ... (but) the use of unmalted cereals....is common... and the taste of our consumers favors this rank beer better, which has some raw fruit mixed with it.

 

Is there a brewing-insider term that describes non-fermentable "extra" additions in general (ie, coffee, vanilla, peppers, etc)?

 

The TTB calls them "exempt ingredients" based on their 2015 Rulling which now permits their use without submitting a formula:
Ingredients and Processes Used in the Production of Beer Not Subject to Formula Requirements

And since most of the beers that use them are classified as "906 MALT BEVERAGES SPECIALITIES - FLAVORED" for their TTB COLAs, I say they're "Exempt Flavoring Ingredients" (tho' I doubt that's the case for most brewers and likely won't catch on given the prejudice against FMBs...even though legally that's what they are brewing).

 

Originally many in craft beer railed against fizzy yellow beer brewed to the lowest common denominator and promoted craft beer as a heartier more authentic alternative. Over the years we have learned that you can not brew certain styles - like many of the big Belgians - without using adjuncts. In the past few years as the number of brewers in the US approaches 5,000 more brewers are experimenting and trying new things and their objective now relates more to what the beer tastes like and less to the purity and sanctity of the brewing process. In the 80s and 90s craft brewers distinguished themselves from the Budweisers of the world and the word adjunct was one way to do that. Today they are competing with each other as as much as they are competing with AB InBev for tap handles, shelf space and share of throat.

 

Areas of interest always develop jargon that differs as applied to the area of interest from the common language or dictionary definition. Areas of interest always shorten this jargon for efficiency of speaking and communicating within the area of interest.

Industry jargon is to serve the practitioners in that industry; always being precise wrt strictly dictionary definitions would not serve the purpose.

What does "blind" mean? Depends. Are you duck hunting? Are you speaking of your physical condition? Are you conducting a beer tasting?

What does "boot" mean? Depends. Are you taking to a computer engineer? Are you shopping for outerwear? Are you talking about statistical modeling?

It is reasonable to assume that when one asks on a discussion forum on Beer Advocate what an "adjunct" is, he is not asking for someone to look the word up in Websters (or dictionary.com).

 

If I could I'd "like" this post until my keyboard wore out.

 

Boot can also be the trunk of a car in Britain. The hood is the Bonnet.

 

Couldn't disagree more.

First of all, "just semantics" is plain wrong in this case. Sometimes it is the semantics that are most critical. (There are instance in history where semantics have been the cause or a triggering factor of wars.)

Secondly, since this is a site about beer and brewing (see homebrewing forums) it is not a "lazily limited definition" by brewers (if only because there's nothing lazy about using a professional language), but rather it's a simple lack of understanding of complexity on the part of posters that leads to the confusion combined with the assumption they don't need to learn about the language as used by the pros.

 

"Flavorings" sort of gets to it, but will people confuse that with dry hopping or even hop alternatives?

I've just used "adjuncts," modifying that as "fermentable adjuncts" and "non-fermentable adjuncts" if the context of the conversation doesn't make it clear from the start.

Still curious if people use other terms, though.

 

Fair points, but you yourself referred to the term as "often misused... as it applies to brewing." The industry jargon causes confusion and exclusion (of people who aren't aware of the industry's esoteric usage).

I called it a "lazily limited definition" because I don't think brewers as a group ever thoughtfully decided, "This is what we mean when we say 'adjunct.'" There was a slightly longer term ("malt adjunct") that naturally shortened over time. The new term ("adjunct") is used in an unconventionally limited way, and I'm not sure if that disconnect even occurs to brewers. I agree that it's valuable to clarify and inform people how the term tends to be (mis?)used in the industry so that we all get on the same page. I think it would be even more valuable if the industry would conform to standard English usage.

Great solution, although it would put brewers and their advocates on the defensive. "Flavorings" and "additives" are terms that don't well convey their users' intent. "Non-fermentable adjuncts" or perhaps better yet "unfermented adjuncts" (to clarify how fruit and the like have been used) are terms that seem to me to get the point across well, even if they may induce some grumbling.

 

Someone should do a beer ad campaign based on that concept.

Oh, wait, they already did - P. Ballantine & Sons, mid-1940s.

 

Sure they did. Just two examples from the industry standard handbook The Practical Brewer, published by The Master Brewers Association of the Americas (1946 and 1977 editions, respectively)

 

Ha! I'm sure that was well after it had thoughtlessly come into common usage within the industry. But touché.

Added: I never meant to imply that the industry hadn't codified its own usage, just that its usage likely developed in a way that unintentionally largely divorced the term from the word's standard English meaning. But since we're involved in semantics, I'll concede that my own language was insufficiently precise, and now I have been hoisted by my own petard.

 

Brewing is full of terms that are not what you would think, or have their roots in German or Latin. You have to learn the technical language.

 

Really, "thoughtlessly" ? How about over a century ago, then?


Within the US brewing industry - as well as the general beer drinking public - the term "adjunct" has long been understood to mean "malt adjunct" aka "brewing adjunct".

 

Yes, "thoughtlessly." I don't think any thought went into the shortening of the term "malt adjunct" to "adjunct" (beyond, "This is faster to say."). I'm not saying malt adjuncts were employed in the brewing process thoughtlessly. What I'm calling thoughtless is the adoption of the generic term "adjunct" as a substitute for the more specific terms "malt adjunct," "fermentable adjunct," or "fermented adjunct" (not that the latter two ever were widely used).

I think you're completely wrong about the level of awareness of most beer consumers. I suspect the vast majority of the "general beer drinking public" has not encountered the term "adjunct" in the context of beer. I'll venture to guess that, if they were to encounter the term, if anything they probably would assume it refers to fruit and coffee and the like. Heck, I'm not sure the average beer consumer could correctly identify barley as the primary grain used to brew the vast majority of beer, let alone think about the secondary role that may be played by rice, corn, etc.

 

Pish posh. Hardly any jargon is considered intellectually by some governing body and then shortened by conscious decision knowing that it will now deviate from the dictionary. Any formal definition of a glossary of terms comes later after they are in common use within the area of interest.

My own example, "boot" in the computer industry. At one time, it was "bootstrap loader". So, to start up a computer, you loaded and executed the "bootstrap loader", which then loaded the main OS, etc. Over time, you "bootstrapped" the computer, Then, "booted" the computer. Now, you just "boot". The ACM did not decide that "load and execute the bootstrap loader" was too long, so they would now mandate using only the word "boot". It happened naturally through use by engineers and computer scientists, just as all language evolves en everyday life.

 

If Wikipedia says it, it must be true

 

Well for me "lazily" implies sloppiness and I've never seen that with jargon terms used in the various professional domains I've had the pleasure to learn about during my career.

Definitions/usages are often not all learned from a "Glossary" type defining process, especially when much of the Jargon (and indeed language in general) is being learned and is evolving over time in an environment that involves hands/minds on experiential learning and apprenticeships.

Also it's useful to recognize that a dictionary type definition is a history lesson about the general usage in the language community as a whole. But that does not make it either accurate or to be prefered over the jargon terms developed by the working professionals focused on their work and communicating with each other.

 

I think all the fuss about adjunct use was always stupid.

Some of the finest British Ales ever made used flaked corn or grits (and even sugar) in their grain bill ...going back more than a hundred years.
In fact, for the last 25 years (almost half the amount of time I have been a homebrewer), I've been using corn, rice, and/or invert sugar in some of my brews, and the improvement to them was nothing short of incredible.

The whole "we don't use corn in our beer" hype a few years ago was, to me, nothing more than marketing nonsense, encouraged by the Brewer's Association.
Quality (and even World Class) beer can (and has been) made using these ingredients.
It all depends upon how you use the adjuncts.