Adjunct Misinformation

The original meaning of adjunct was a substance which yields fermentable sugars only by means of the excess enzymes in the malt. Unmalted Barley, wheat, potato starch etc. Rice was added by Budweiser to mop up excess enzymes present in lower grade barley malt and allow domestic barley to be used.
Yes, language does change and one reason why there is so much misunderstanding about brewing history is not realising that people in the past had different meanings for many terms.
The problem with loose use of jargon though is that it is there for a purpose, what now do you call an additive used to utilise and mop up malt enzymes?

 

I see it - in his quote of mambossa's OP he bolded the words:

Although, probably would have been better to delete the rest of the post or used underlining as well as bolding.

Well, many would prefer to continue to use the term how the US brewing industry has traditionally defined it. Commonly understood and accepted definitions helps with communication - it doesn't hinder it. Everyone having their own definition...well...

I thought snickerdoodle was a crossbreed of dog - half Belgian Schipperke and half poodle? I guess that could be an "adjunct" but seems more likely to be an "allegen", too.

 

A number of the 'extra' ingredients thrown into that beer would be classified as spices as you noted. Also stuff like oranges, limes, etc. would be classified as being flavorings.

An item on that list of stuff that could be classified as being a brewing adjunct is milk sugar.

Cheers!

 

I thought milk sugar was just used for body/mouthfeel; that it wasn’t fermentable? That was just based on what a home brewing friend told me though. I’m far from an expert myself so could be totally off base.

 

Can’t we agree to use a term like ‘flavor additives’?

 

Good catch. I was under the impression that some of the milk sugar would be fermented (with some residual left) but you are correct: milk sugar (lactose) is not fermentable by brewers yeast.

Cheers!

 

I think for many, the word "additive" in itself has a negative connotation*, the Feds just call 'em "Exempt Ingredients" (exempt, that is, from the old recipe pre-approval regulation) in Ruling 2015-1, so I'd just say they're "flavoring ingredients".

* Of course, speaking of "negative connotation" --- why I remember when the word "adjunct" had it. Who'da thunk it's rep would so quickly do a 180°?

Well, as noted by @rozzom that one might be controversial... but, along with other fruits and vegetables and sugar sources (molasses, maple syrup...) that do add some sugar/carbohydrate material are they really "malt adjuncts" in the sense that they're added to the recipe supplement the total fermentable material from barley malt and traditional adjuncts? Or is that just a small side factor in their usage, which is primarily flavoring?

 

ITT: a bunch of olds who don't/can't acknowledge that language changes. If it didn't- why are there different languages?

 

Well, in order to properly respond here we will need to get 'into the weeds'. Lactose (milk sugar) does indeed add sugar/carbohydrate to the wort. The 'issue' with lactose is that brewers yeast lacks lactase enzyme and consequently can not break down this sugar into fermentable sugars (e.g., glucose). So the addition of lactose will add to the OG (Original Gravity) of the wort but it will remain in the resulting beer (the beer will have a 'higher' Final Gravity). Since lactose is not fermented during primary fermentation it really is not a adjunct.

The lactose will add qualities to the resulting beer:

• With a 'higher' final gravity the beer will have more body (a fuller mouthfeel)
• There will be some sweetness but lactose (milk sugar) is not a sweet sugar in comparison to other sugars like sucrose, glucose,...

Cheers!

 

At our semi-regular BA Other Half Brewing meet up a couple weeks ago, @RobNewton (the home brewer i mentioned above) brought in a bag of lactose to try. Like I said I am far from an expert - maybe during the process some sweetness becomes apparent. But trying the stuff straight from the bag it was negligibly sweet. Like on a 100 point scale maybe a 2?

 

I have never used lactose in my brewing practice so I have no personal experience here. From my readings lactose is not a sweet sugar in comparison to 'common' sugars like sucrose, glucose,... I will take your word for it that is has a 'sweetness factor' of 2 on a 100 point scale.

Will the value be greater than 2 in the resulting beer? You got me here.

Cheers!

 

I usually just said "additives".. But might just go with "bonus shit" from now on.

 

Well before adjunct started getting misused people used to say (and still do) “fruited sour” for example. Could we say “junk-fooded stout”?

 

This why brewers should use latin to describe their beers. Dead languages don't change.

 

So, is lactose simply used to turbidify a beer, or are there other intentions? I've had some very nice milk stouts, but I am really uninitiated on the value of this sugar in beer.

 

For the case of a beer style like a Milk Stout the principle purpose of utilizing lactose (milk sugar) is to add body to the beer.

Cheers!

 

What other attributes may lactose lend to other beer styles? Conceptually, the addition of lactose has never appealed to me. But I am not a brewer (yet).

 

That works but sounds more clinical and not as much fun as "add-junks", "stuff", or "gimmicks"

 

I am going with bonus shit as coined by @StoutSnob40