Adjunct vs. Additive

wps-hbt
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
C

Clarke

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
464
Reaction score
42
The way I understand it, is that adjunct is a non-malted ingredient but…

To me an “Adjunct” is just as it sounds, you are adding ‘junk’ to your recipe to replace an essential ingredient, usually to save on cost as the BMC breweries do.

An “Additive” is just that, you are adding other, extra ingredients to the recipe to add character such as coriander and orange peels to a Belgian Wit.

If I cut the malt and add sugar to maintain my ABV then I am adding adjuncts.

But if I keep the malt bill the same and add sugar to bump up my ABV then I am adding an additives.

I would guess that back in the day “Belgian candi sugar/syrup” was an adjunct for limited grain access and today it is an additive because it is an essential ingredient to the style.

Even the rice and corn added to BMC, I would consider to be an additive because it is an essential part of what makes this style of Light Lager, but it originally started as an adjunct to cut cost.

What are your thoughts?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adjunct?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/additive?s=t
 
You can redefine it any way you want, but in brewing literature adjunct is a non-barleymalt fermentable and additives are agents used in processing.

Maybe they sound somewhat the same to you but the etymology of adjunct and junk are different as well. That's just a beer snob understanding of BMC using "adjunks" only to cut cost, which is incorrect.

There are still plenty of homebrewers that will maintain that adding table sugar will make beer taste cidery.
 
If I cut the malt and add sugar to maintain my ABV then I am adding adjuncts.

But if I keep the malt bill the same and add sugar to bump up my ABV then I am adding an additives.
Click to expand...

I really see no difference here. Adjuncts are perfectly acceptable in brewing, there is nothing negative about them. I'm with orangehero, an additive is something like enzymes, irish moss, yeast nutrient, anti-foam...things that are process related.
 
I'm with these guys. To me,

Adjunct- A source of fermentables other than malt (usually barley, but we can group wheat in there too). Some styles flat out REQUIRE adjuncts to be brewed properly. There's nothing wrong with those whatsoever. So any flaked or unmalted grains, sugars, etc.

Additive- Something added procedurally that does not DIRECTLY impact flavor. Finings, water treatments, things like that.

The spices and what not, I would call those flavorings. They're not really fermentables (even if orange peel is techncially fermentable, you're not adding it for the purpose of fermentable sugar), but they do directly impact flavor.

That's my take. And yeah, the "OMGZ ADDJUNX R BAD N JUNX" is the same incorrect misunderstood snobby rant as someone saying that BMC beers are crappy beers. Proof that they don't know nearly as much about brewing as they think they do. Reinheitsgebot puritanism is for the birds.
 
I can’t nor want to disagree with any of you, what got me started was I noticed the two words used interchangeably, even in brewing literature. So I looked up the definition in the dictionary.

Adjunct - something added to another thing but not essential to it.

Additive - something that is added, as one substance to another, to alter or improve the general quality or to counteract undesirable properties.

Though I would like to argue that BMC is/was using cheaper ingredient, I really don’t know and I only took the mainstream consensus that this was so. Back in the day rice and corn was cheap, and it was also a local ingredient, and it was probably a style of beer too. But pre- probation, there were lots of different styles and this is what ended up with??? Money always motivates big business.

helibrewer said:
I really see no difference here. Adjuncts are perfectly acceptable in brewing, there is nothing negative about them. I'm with orangehero, an additive is something like enzymes, irish moss, yeast nutrient, anti-foam...things that are process related.
Click to expand...
I am not implying a negative spin but the difference is IMO, that if the BMC opinion is true that they use rice and corn as a fermentable vs malt for economy reasons, then you get a different beer, same with cutting malt and just adding sugar, you will have a different beer and a cheaper beer, one you can get drunk on, when to most BMC drinkers I know this is the point of beer in the first place, to get drunk, or at least a good buzz. Probably cutting malt for sugar was not the best example but I also believe that back in the day they added sugar for a reason, and since things get cut for cheaper ingredients that result with a near same end product, things get cut and added all the time to stuff for economy reasons it only make sense this was done to beer too. Or maybe they just had a malt shortage one year and had to compensate and bam a new style was born.

orangehero said:
There are still plenty of homebrewers that will maintain that adding table sugar will make beer taste cidery.
Click to expand...
Not sure what this opinion has to do with adjunct vs. Additive, but whether a brew thinks this or thinks that, it is still a used ingredient for beer styles, maybe they started as way to bump ABV then became a staple to the style.

I belief history and literature, in general is blurred and written with an objective opinion.

Honestly I took the exact definition of a word and implied to beer.

I now understand that in beer terms, adjunct is a non-malted fermentable and additive is an agent used in the process. Which made me think about food, an adjunct is what most people eat, cheap crap fast food and sodas that make us sick, high blood pressure, overweight, ADHD, depressed, etc… and the additive is the drugs we get to counter act all that, when if we just ate clean to begin with… But this has no point to this post only I don't like additives in my beer.
 
Clarke said:
If I cut the malt and add sugar to maintain my ABV then I am adding adjuncts.
Click to expand...

Six of one...

Clarke said:
But if I keep the malt bill the same and add sugar to bump up my ABV then I am adding an additives.
Click to expand...

half dozen of the other.


Clarke said:
What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Either way you look at it, you are trying to justify producing cheap alcohol by adding non-malt fermentables.

Any fermentable other than malt is an adjunct.
 
podz said:
Six of one...



half dozen of the other.




Either way you look at it, you are trying to justify producing cheap alcohol by adding non-malt fermentables.

Any fermentable other than malt is an adjunct.
Click to expand...

This is the stigma that I hate. Adjuncts do more than just cut cost.

Even in the case of sugar, sugar allows you to really lean out the body on a beer, creating something more dry than would be possible with malted barley. And the use of corn and rice are simply ways of doing the same thing.

When I'm brewing a Belgian BDSA or Golden Strong or Tripel, I'm not adding sugar to cut costs. I'm adding it because those are beers that need to be "digestible" and wouldn't be appropriate when they're all-malt.
 
Qhrumphf said:
This is the stigma that I hate.
Click to expand...

So stated, I am a card-carrying member of the group that believes adding sugar to beer is a crime of deviance.

So sue me! But you won't change my mind. And it's a rather large group.
 
podz said:
So stated, I am a card-carrying member of the group that believes adding sugar to beer is a crime of deviance.

So sue me! But you won't change my mind. And it's a medium sized country.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you. Sind Sie aus Deutschland? Because I'm having a hard time telling.

:mug:
 
I use adjuncts when appropriate- oats in an oatmeal stout, flaked rice in a cream ale, sugar in an IIPA- but in my experience they are NOT cheap subs for malt.

I pay about 70 cents a pound for base two-row, but far more than that (more than twice as much oftentimes) for oats, flaked rice, flaked corn, and sugar. So it's not that I"m a cheap lazy SOB who puts in quick subs to save money and time. And actually, sometimes using adjuncts requires extra time and effort as some ingredients require a cereal mash.

Sometimes the styles demand the use of adjuncts, but in other beers adjuncts would be out of place. It's not good, or bad. It is just what the beer is.
 
Qhrumphf said:
Fixed that for you. Sind Sie aus Deutschland? Because I'm having a hard time telling.

:mug:
Click to expand...

Ich bin kein Deutscher, aber dort lebte ich für eine lange Zeit.

Truth be told, though, I'd be perfectly content if I was restricted to beers that come out of Munich for the rest of my life.
 
Qhrumphf said:
This is the stigma that I hate. Adjuncts do more than just cut cost.

Even in the case of sugar, sugar allows you to really lean out the body on a beer, creating something more dry than would be possible with malted barley. And the use of corn and rice are simply ways of doing the same thing.

When I'm brewing a Belgian BDSA or Golden Strong or Tripel, I'm not adding sugar to cut costs. I'm adding it because those are beers that need to be "digestible" and wouldn't be appropriate when they're all-malt.
Click to expand...

This is where I was going with this. Exactly is sugar a substitute or an essential part of the recipe? By English definition, an adjunct or additive?

additive: something that is added, as one substance to another, to alter or improve the general quality or to counteract undesirable properties

Sugar can improve quality of a style of beer, so my thought direction is that sugar a simple fermentable or Belgian syrup or any "adjunct" was probably used first as a way to substitute then became a staple with measurable improvement to the final product.

brew_ny said:
maybe I will need to rethink that cream ale I like to make so much with that rice and corn

I hate to think I am brewing with junk
Click to expand...
Don't be so literal it was a play on words. And somewhere in history would it be possible that these ingredients where used as a substitute and in years past may have been cheaper to use when malt was being taxed?

paperairplane said:
The pumpkin in a pumpkin beer is an adjunct.
Click to expand...
Is it? If it falls within the items in this link, I would say it is an additive
http://www.midwestsupplies.com/homebrewing-ingredients/beer-additives.html?p=1

By simple definition:
adjunct - is a thing added to something else as a supplementary rather than an essential part.

additive - a substance added to something in small quantities, typically to improve or preserve it.

I was just wondering if sugar, rice or corn could go from adjunct to additive. and the consensus seems to say no, once and adjunct always an adjunct.
 
Clarke said:
Don't be so literal it was a play on words. And somewhere in history would it be possible that these ingredients where used as a substitute and in years past may have been cheaper to use when malt was being taxed?
Click to expand...

no worries there my friend just goofing with you :) believe me I will be still brewing my cream ale

S_M
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by paperairplane
The pumpkin in a pumpkin beer is an adjunct.

Is it?

{snip}

yes, pumpkin, since it has fermentable sugars and replaces malt, it would be an adjunct!
The spices would be an additive.
 
It doesn't matter what the dictionary says - brewing is a profession with its own jargon, and words may have a different meaning in disciplinary jargon than they do in everyday colloquial language. See theory (colloquial) vs. theory (natural science).

Everyone in the industry knows that these terms mean. If it's a sugar or source of sugars that's not a malt, then it's an adjunct. If it's anything else, like a flavoring or a process aid, it's an additive.
 
ArcaneXor said:
It doesn't matter what the dictionary says - brewing is a profession with its own jargon, and words may have a different meaning in disciplinary jargon than they do in everyday colloquial language. See theory (colloquial) vs. theory (natural science).

Everyone in the industry knows that these terms mean. If it's a sugar or source of sugars that's not a malt, then it's an adjunct. If it's anything else, like a flavoring or a process aid, it's an additive.
Click to expand...

True that, but surely you can see my point, even industry jargon start from somewhere and they do get fixed in stone for industry reasons. A word is defined and used for a reason not just because.

"colloquial" vs "natural science" is over my head, I couldn't figure out a way to google it. It kept taking me to evolution and I can only assume we where about to get into religion or something... 10 foot pole buddy.. sorry
 
Clarke said:
"colloquial" vs "natural science" is over my head, I couldn't figure out a way to google it. It kept taking me to evolution and I can only assume we where about to get into religion or something... 10 foot pole buddy.. sorry
Click to expand...

Not at all related to religion. A theory in science is something along the lines of the best currently available model to fit a set of observations, whereas Joe Q. Public understands a theory as referring to something along the lines of an educated guess (which is science is essentially a hypothesis).
 
Yooper said:
What makes a homebrew store an authority on what constitutes an additive vs a fermentable adjunct? I'm a winemaker. I would never consider fruit or a fruit puree an "additive", as it may make up the entire recipe.
Click to expand...

what make anybody an authority on anything, perception I guess. From an amateur stand point they are in the business and business's has jargons. I would consider them just as much a professional as a brew master of a brewery. I know some brewers that could careless what it is called and they don't even know the difference but they know how to use the ingredients and make a living making beer, so who is an authority? The guy who wrote the book I suppose.

Beer and wine are IMO two different industries, I wouldn't consider fruit or fruit puree an additive in wine either but in beer maybe.

But now I am just arguing a point that does not exist. I get the jargons and the industry terms etc... I just wanted to talk about it.
 
ArcaneXor said:
Not at all related to religion. A theory in science is something along the lines of the best currently available model to fit a set of observations, whereas Joe Q. Public understands a theory as referring to something along the lines of an educated guess (which is science is essentially a hypothesis).
Click to expand...

Yeah, over my head. I don't see the point? A jargon was derived from a word that has a definition to give this word meaning to give this jargon purpose, it's all circles man, all circles.
 
ArcaneXor said:
Everyone in the industry knows that these terms mean. If it's a sugar or source of sugars that's not a malt, then it's an adjunct. If it's anything else, like a flavoring or a process aid, it's an additive.
Click to expand...

I really want to use adjuncts but I really don't like it when you call them adjuncts. :rolleyes:

That about sums it up, right?

I used dark molasses as an experiment a few times when making stout, so I too am guilty by exception. However, as a rule, I don't use adjuncts.

Speaking of LHBS staff being "authorities" on something, I was in the LHBS a few days back looking for my favorite Champagne yeast (Kitzingers). Little did I know that the owner had been punked earlier in the day by a woman Lavlin rep. You see, they never carried Lavlin before. Now, there was a big display box of Lavlin EC-1118 *right* next to the door entrance. When I asked for the Kitzingers, the owner told me that they won't get it anymore and swiftly pointed me to the Lavlin. I told him that I don't want Lavlin, I want Kitzingers. OK, I need to break paragraph to emphasise the next point:

He told me that all Champagne yeasts are the same since they are all collected from the same area of France.

Umm, yeah, Kitzinger has been propogating it's strains in it's lab in Kitzingen, Germany for what? 100 years already? It contributes a flavour profile, whereas EC-1118 has none. Now, I'm going to have to hunt down a pack via mail order and start propogating it myself.

So, I wouldn't give too much creedence to LHBS staff, or even owners, being authorities on anything. Especially yeast. Especially when they've been punked by Lavlin reps who don't like competition.
 
podz said:
So stated, I am a card-carrying member of the group that believes adding sugar to beer is a crime of deviance.

So sue me! But you won't change my mind. And it's a rather large group.
Click to expand...

So you don't like Belgian beers?
 
ubnserved said:
So you don't like Belgian beers?
Click to expand...

No, not really. At least I haven't found one yet that I like.

I've tried Chimay and Kasteel, both way too sweet for my taste. I've tried Stella and Hoegaarden many times because it was cheap at a pub I used to frequent, just not what I would consider as good beer. Tiny, little bottles of fruit beer just ain't my thing, either.

I am considering sampling a few of the trappist beers during this weekend. Still, it's pretty hard for any Belgian beer to compete with a proper Münchener beer such as Hofbräu Dunkel or Weihenstephaner Hefeweissbier in my highly subjective opinion.
 
podz said:
Speaking of LHBS staff being "authorities" on something, ...


So, I wouldn't give too much creedence to LHBS staff, or even owners, being authorities on anything. Especially yeast. Especially when they've been punked by Lavlin reps who don't like competition.
Click to expand...


I sort of agree that most people don't know what they are talking about in any industry, it is the responsibility of an individual to be an authority in their chosen field of work. Some people, most people work because they have to not because they want to. And some are lucky enough to have a fun job and ride it for what it is worth and only learn enough to make thru the day.

The bigger the business the more I expect them to be an authority because there are more people out to discredit you and take your business than just some Joe Blow at the corner LHBS.

Becoming an expert at anything is a personal drive to succeed and reputation is built on that success.
 
I've never heard a fermentable referred to as an additive. There are malts and adjuncts. I love adjuncts when they're appropriate.
 
and I never really knew the difference before this thread
 

Similar threads

M
Barleywine
Replies
6
Views
734
mschoeffler
M
F
BeerSmith vs Brewer's Friend: different OG
Replies
15
Views
634
day_trippr
day_trippr
luckybeagle
BU:GU Ratio and adjuncts?
Replies
8
Views
819
hottpeper13
H
shrews824
Hop addition question
Replies
9
Views
788
shrews824
shrews824
B
DIPA Sample Harsh Bitterness
Replies
10
Views
626
bailey mountain brewer
bailey mountain brewer
InkBird 300

Latest posts

Back
Top