A few months back  here at onbeer.org, during some discussion around what defines craft (found here and here), there was some debate about whether the use of adjuncts is an important aspect of differentiating brewers. Some felt that adjuncts – the addition of non-malt to a beer pre-fermentation – divided craft brewers and non-craft. In this regard, I believe they were referring to the ubiquitous use of corn and rice in macro-lagers to lighten body and lower costs. Others pointed out that many traditional styles call for the use of adjuncts, meaning their use is not illegitimate.

Well, I decided to ponder that issue more thoroughly for my January Beer 101 column over at SherbrookeLiquor.com. Most of the piece is devoted to educating about what adjuncts are and, importantly, how the various kinds of adjuncts differ. After all, any  non-malt addition is an adjunct, including pumpkin, sugar, ginger or what-have-you.

The crux of the column, however, is that by demarcating the types of adjunct, what reveals itself is that the difference between craft and non-craft is the INTENT behind the use of the adjunct. Is it a cost-saving, palate-lightening practice? In other words, is it trying to take away from the beer? Or is it an exercise in adding a character to a beer (which, admittedly can include a lighter body)? How a brewer uses the adjunct may be the defining feature.

I realize that this doesn’t resolve the debate, because it can be legitimately argued that North American pale lagers are now a bona fide style and that many craft brewers make good examples of that kind of beer. True enough. However,I think we would be naive if we thought that the big boys use adjuncts because they feel it adds a certain je ne sais quoi to their product. It is about economics as much as it is quality. And, there, in my opinion lays the difference.

You can read the whole Beer 100 column here.