Adjunct Misinformation

Sure, the solution here is to ‘invent’ new words!?!

If Volkswagen can sell cars with fahrvergnügen why not call AAL beers something else with a ‘fancy’ German word.

Cheers!

 

The Elsevier's Dictionary of Barley, Malting and Brewing in Six Languages [1961] from the European Brewery Convention says:

 

It's mostly annoying in this case, because such a beer is a pure joke - but also because it incorrectly uses a word that a brewer should most certainly be able to comprehend.

 

Malzsurrogat works for me.
Have US brewers always used adjunct to mean “malt adjunct” or was another term originally used?

No, it's about recognizing that once a usage hits the mainstream, in this case media, brewers, and drinkers, you're fighting a losing battle.

“Adjunct“ seems to be a case where the choices are limited to

1. Complain that it no longer strictly applies to fermentation and continue to (personally) use it in that sense in a rearguard action
2. Add “malt” and “flavoring” qualifiers to differentiate
3. Use adjunct to mean anything other than the 4 basics + wheat and no longer make the distinction
4. Come up with a new word or phrase to specify “malt adjunct”

I get the feeling that opinions on this break down by age with <low-30's embracing the “new” definition while older drinkers/brewers prefer the terminology they grew up with (I still, stubbornly, use gay to mean happy & carefree).
As much as I might regret it, the younguns will, eventually, win out.

On a related note, a few years ago I realized that I'm in the last generation to understand the chorus to Sylvia's Mother

 

It seems like we are reaching a point of diminishing returns. The best advice (which I already gave) is read a textbook(s).

If you choose to not recognize Dr. Charlie Bamforth, Graham G. Stewart (an emeritus professor in brewing and distilling at Heriot-Watt University), and others as being “experts” then…

I have been brewing beer for 25 years and I know what the term adjunct means as regards brewing beer.

I hope you have a nice day.

P.S. If you truly wished to be educated here I would be willing to do so but it seems to me that you really don’t.

 

Despite being / having been a big fan of three out of four of those bands, when I hear “Big Four” I think of the accounting firms. I understand this reflects poorly on me.

As to the debate at hand - I think both sides have a legitimate argument. For better or worse the adjunct = anything added side “wins” because that has become broadly adopted.

What doesn’t hold water with me is that because the new meaning of adjunct (in beer/brewing) more closely matches the general meaning, that that gives the current/newer usage any extra gravitas. All sorts of industries, niche sectors etc have adopted words that have broad/certain meanings to mean something very different/specific/narrow. Because a bunch of beer geeks, turned home brewers, turned direct-to-consumer breweries selling “adjunct”-laden pastry stouts have chosen to change the usage of the word to match the broader usage - well we have to get on board whether we like it or not. But it’s not “right” if that makes sense

 

While I agree with @JackHorzempa and the deference to the experts within this canon of brewing as to the definition of proper adjunct usage, I think this sums up the issue:

On BA this is a tempest in a teapot. Outside these screens, the public just doesn't care: both about the interest in being educated on the etymology of "adjunct", or as to whether that term is being appropriately utilized. As wrong as the usage may be, I doubt a single buyer will be swayed by the egregious misuse of adjunct to describe "snickerdoodle"...let along the vagary of using snickerdoodle as a descriptor in the first place.

The point was made earlier that brewers are probably using adjunct instead of flavoring because it's a more palatable term, given negative connotation toward the term "flavoring". I think this is spot on. The "craft" consuming public knows this too in a way, but makes themselves feel better in thinking that those peanut butter cups and Lucky Charms dumped in their beer make it fancy because they are "adjuncts", not flavoring additives. In my opinion, it is steering of the beer's perception by brewers, and self-placating language by consumers.

 

On TeacherAdvocate.com, some people have started to call certain tenured professors "adjunct professors" if they feel that that particular professor is not "essential" to the school. And now, the actual adjunct professors are taking offense to their title because they feel that the revealed broader meaning indicates systemic bias. It's gotten nasty over there.

 

I personally think that is what this whole debate over the modern usage of "adjunct" comes down to.

Contemporary usage of language, especially in craft brewing, projects additive/flavoring as a negative, done as a crass gimmick by large brewers. By lumping what many consider as additives (cookies, candy, fruit, etc.) into a category that was traditionally utilized for a fairly specific scope of ingredients, an air of legitimacy is lent to their inclusion. In a field where taste (not marketing) is supposed to be king, there is an air of disingenuity of being told that one's beer was intentionally flavored to taste like s'mores or fruit pie. Couch that flavor however in language that has traditionally been used to describe a technical part of the brewing process, and it becomes far more palatable to the general public.

 

The word is not being used incorrectly to refer to flavour additions like coffee, vanilla, maple syrup, etc. These ingredients are being added to a beer and are thus adjuncts to the beer. There is no mis-use of the English language here. This point can not be debated.

Because the convention in brewing circles has been to refer to malt adjuncts simply as adjuncts, the use of the word adjunct, with no qualifier, to refer to coffee, vanilla, maple syrup, etc. is an unconventional use of the word when referring these kinds of. additions to beer. This is still not wrong, just confusing and unclear given convention.

While not really necessary, the distinction mentioned by @islay above is all that is needed for clarity. Namely, malt adjunct and flavouring adjunct. That way you are actually being clearer about what you mean, both in the conventional sense, and the unconventional sense.

If the concern is one with respect to clarity, then both the conventional and unconventional adjuncts should carry a preceding qualifier.

 

American craft brewers seem to approach their trade as though it is the ‘Wild West’ and they can do whatever they want. If they want to add snickerdoodles to their beers they choose to do so. If they want to add bacon to their beers then ditto. The sky is the limit.

I personally have no interest in any of those sorts of beers I detailed above but if an American craft brewer wants to go that way, and the brewery owner is OK with it, go for it.

But when it comes to brewing industry terminology an American craft brewer(s) does not have carte blanche here. They really should be using terms as they are used within the brewing industry.

Cheers!

 

Ewe always get me.

 

I agree with everything you say here, including the “should be using terms as they are used within the brewing industry” and lack of interest in those sorts of beers.

But there is no overriding authority (outside of gov't) mandating the use of specific terminology and, once consumer-oriented media and industry members (professional brewers) start using an alternative definition the writing is on the wall; whether or not the “new” definition is correct no longer matters to anyone other than purists.

I'm sure my grandkids will be debating if hop-flavored yeasts should be classified as adjuncts

 

If they were properly educated (e.g., Brewing School at UC Davis) maybe there would be no debate occurring here?

Cheers!

 

Again, consider the possibility that they are "properly educated" and simply disagree with you. I've been very well aware of both sides of this debate for years and fall firmly into the broad/modern usage camp.