Adjunct Misinformation

There is absolutely no doubt what your objectives are.

 

Well that's cryptic. I'll state my objectives: To clarify actual industry usage (in which the term "adjuncts" in practice usually includes flavorings), to encourage the adoption of the modern usage of the term that is better in keeping with the English language word rather than mere archaic and arguably confused past industry jargon, to end the myth that the term "adjuncts" can never properly include flavorings, to expose fellow BeerAdvocate users to the phenomenon that this debate is largely (though not completely) confined to the BeerAdvocate forums due to the special emphasis on the word "adjunct" at this site in particular (few non-BeerAdvocate-users have much emotional investment in the word), and to counter the misguided prejudice that those who utilize the broad and modern definition are inherently ignorant or spreading "misinformation."

 

Every industry has 'jargon' and the brewing industry is no different in this regard.

 

The dictionary definition of adjunct does not equal the brewing industry definition of adjunct. So proper English is being used, but in a technical sense, it is not correct. In brewing terminology flavor additions are exactly that, not adjuncts.

 

The UC system? Nah. Maybe Auburn's program (grandmother's alma mater).

 

I've fallen into the use the correct brewing terminology when talking about beer camp.

Samuel Smith's Oatmeal Stout - adjuct stout

Founders Breakfast Stout - flavored adjuct stout

If you're not using the correct terminology how does anyone know which one you're talking about when you ask - What's your favorite adjunct stout?

 

TBH, who talks that way.
I've been asked “what's your favorite (coffee, milk, maple, oatmeal, etc) stout?”, but I've never had anyone ask me “what's your favorite adjunct [insert beer style]?”

Which is why, ideally, the industry & community would adopt “malting” and “flavoring” qualifiers, but I don't see that happening

 

I actually do hear many brewers referring to "adjunct stouts." They almost invariably mean "stouts using flavoring adjuncts." Because, in actual industry "jargon" in practice, flavorings are widely recognized as a form of "adjunct." The idea that brewers themselves mean "malt adjunct" when they say "adjunct" largely is an outdated myth to which a subset of BeerAdvocate users cling. In dictionary terms, it would be considered a secondary and "archaic" definition, even within the "jargon."

 

This is the thread I was thinking of:

https://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/favorite-non-adjunct-ba-stouts.612118/

Thought they were misusing the term adjunct. They are misusing non-adjunct

 

Absolutely no need to personalize things here.

Make you point if you feel compelled but when communicating with others please leave my name out of it.

 

...I never meant to mislead anybody.

 

That would be my hope as well.

Cheers!

 

This may have been the convention within the industry for quite some time. As the first post in this thread illustrates, that is a convention that is changing. No brewer who uses the term adjunct to refer to the flavouring ingredients added to his or her pastry stout is confused as to what they are doing.

Using the word adjunct to refer to a very specific kind of ingredient may have been appropriate in the past. Now, with the great proliferation of styles and increasingly diverse set of ingredients that go into making beer, the imprecision of that term is evident. Conventions in language change as the world language symbolizes changes.

 

Wanted to follow up on this once I had time for a full response, since you raise some good questions.

I don't think "adjunct" in and of itself has that negative of connotation. I think within the craft community most of us know that what have long been considered adjuncts (rye, oats, rice, candi sugar, etc...) are essential to some of the most storied and flavorful beers made. Any BA worth their salt knows that additives can make for amazing beers. I'd assume the general public has little to no idea or opinion as to brewing adjuncts other than what a commercial may have told them or they overheard someone discussing.

Where I feel the pushback arises is the very rapid co-opting of a huge spectrum of ingredients into what has traditionally been a fairly narrow, if not formally defined, classification. For a long time I think outside the occasional outlier, beer was pretty much made by "beer ingredients". Yes there were spiced winter warmers and Belgian Quads and Gose, but the addition of "flavoring adjuncts" was rare enough to be a novelty. The sudden onslaught of additive-heavy beers in the last few years has turned this on it's head, to the point that it's arguably harder to find "pure" versions of many styles as opposed to those produced with additives. There are a large number of beers right now that arguably do feel as though they're "cheating" by utilizing additives - creating beers so loaded with additives not essential to the brewing process that it's impossible to really taste the beer itself. If a beer is loaded up with chocolate, vanilla, german chocolate cake, and graham crackers, is there way to really judge the craft behind it? This isn't necessarily "cheating" to emulate a style that could be done additive-free; it's adding so many ingredients that the character of any sort of base beer is lost. In my mind, that's where I make the shift from adjunct to additive - where the leap is made from enhancing the character of the beer, to eclipsing it.

With your last point - it's an interesting question, but I think a not-insignificant subset of the contemporary craft drinker sees adjunct as a cool, sexy word. I honestly think it's as simple as that. It sounds fancier than additives or flavoring, but the truly more accurate definition is simply denoting the style and the additions, whatever guise they are presented in.

 

I think we can all agree that meaning of adjunct is evolving to include things that it didn't used to. Purists will gnash their teeth while others will taunt them to get with the times. This is always what happens as language evolves, and it explains why teenagers talking to each other sound so profoundly stupid when heard by my adult ears.

However, there is no way that you can call the fermentable sugars definition of adjuncts archaic, which implies it's a super old fashioned usage that no one says anymore.

 

And it is appropriate in 2019 as well.

The issue is not the times are changing. The issue is that within the Brewing Industry the word "adjunct" has a very specific meaning. As has been discussed above it is a situation of technical jargon within the Brewing Industry.

Recently some American craft brewers have decided to co-opt that word for other reasons (i.e., flavorings).

You may have the view that a subset of American craft brewers who choose to add 'add-junks' in their beer get to change the meaning of a word like "adjunct' but others (including me) think differently.

Cheers!

 

Didn't get this last point in before my edit clock expired:

In reading a few more recent posts, I would argue that it's not the responsibility to the craft community to automatically accept or justify the modification in usage of certain words just because it is done by a few brewers. While language can and does change, it is not obliged to accept every change without question. Some changes stick, others do not; this one appears to be in flux. This conversation is evidence of that, and is a good thing.