American brewers commonly mix other grains (usually corn but sometimes rice or wheat) into the mash to supplement the malt for several reasons but mostly to cut cost.
Any idea what the typical amount of barley is substituted by adjuncts?
I know in some craft brews it’s zero, while in beers like Budweiser and PBR it’s probably a pretty high percentage.
I bet August West could give a more definitive answer, but from browsing some clone recipes , it looks like 30-40% adjuncts.
I can’t click on the links while at work (for some reason, there’s no business purpose to these sites…), but if you do a google search on maximum adjunct percentage, the text I can see says that some malt can tolerate up to 50% adjuncts. And yes, in traditional beer, going back to the reinheitsgebot, all you could put into your beer was water, hops and malted barley. I’m assuming that they would have added yeast to the list if they had invented microbiology.
In The Essentials of Beer Style by Fred Eckhardt he describes Standard Domestic as:
Budweiser is made with up to 30% rice. It has no corn, although corn is used in many other domestic beers (like Coors).
A big reason they are used is for taste and color. You can’t make beer so pale and light-tasting with all barley.
Even some so-called “craft beers” will have some percentage of adjunct included.
Although I’m sure that in the past the big breweries used actual corn and rice, in most cases now they are using syrups. It’s a lot easier to control gravity by adding a measured percentage of a syrup whose gravity is known than to rely on the diastatic power of your malt.
Unfortunately, the answer to your question is “It depends”.
The word “lager” does not in any way imply the addition of adjuncts, and many fine lagers use only water, yeast, barley, and hops. That’s the way the style started, in fact.
Not true. You could say “some” American brewers. I’d say “a minority” of American brewers.
Of the brewers that use adjuncts like wheat, honey, and rye, the majority clearly label the bottles, and they use those additional fermentables to intentionally change the flavor and character of the beer.
In other words, you can’t pick a half-dozen huge brewing companies and say that “American brewers” do this or that because those guys do. Those megabreweries represent one percent or so of the total breweries in America. Unfortunately, that tiny minority produces more beer (by volume) than the majority that doesn’t mix corn, rice, raw sugar, and so forth into their products.
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:7, topic:669555”]
The word “lager” does not in any way imply the addition of adjuncts, and many fine lagers use only water, yeast, barley, and hops. That’s the way the style started, in fact.
Not true. You could say “some” American brewers. I’d say “a minority” of American brewers.
Of the brewers that use adjuncts like wheat, honey, and rye, the majority clearly label the bottles, and they use those additional fermentables to intentionally change the flavor and character of the beer.
In other words, you can’t pick a half-dozen huge brewing companies and say that “American brewers” do this or that because those guys do. Those megabreweries represent one percent or so of the total breweries in America. Unfortunately, that tiny minority produces more beer (by volume) than the majority that doesn’t mix corn, rice, raw sugar, and so forth into their products.
[/QUOTE]
This post is absolute nonsense. I’ve noticed you’ve supplied no cite to your ridiculous claim. You can’t. it’s crap! The majority of beer sold is in the USA is in fact sold by the macrobrewers. So the percentages are on the side of my claim.
If you re-read my OP you’ll see I admitted that micros probably use little, if any, adjuncts.
ALL of the Top 20 selling beers use a large supply of adjuncts in their product. Only Anheuser-Busch has the guts to boldly advertise that Budweiser is made of rice. Other brewers use the term “cereal grains” which could be anything, but is not pure barley malt as a brewer would be quick to advertise that their product is “all malt”.
Is the vague ‘cereal grains’ labelling used so that there’s flexibility on what adjunct is used? So mega beer co can use corn when there’s a bumper corn crop or rice if rice is cheap. Or are the formulas too sensitive for that?
It’s a damn good question that I’m afraid we’ll never get the answer to. Most brewers would gladly invite you to sue them than willingly tell you the exact ingredients of their beer. From what I’ve read over the years most macro-brews are made with all sorts of added smegma that they wouldn’t proudly put on their label. “There is nothing artificial in this product” does not impress me as horseshit is completely natural and full of “cereal grains” :eek:.
I have had cans of PBR and Leinnies Original that tasted cornier than the last time I had it. Was it my taste buds or did the run out of rice on the day they made the batch that ended up in my hand?
Changing corn for rice would completely change the profile of the beer. For lagers, where the flavour is fairly subtle, a small change in ingredients will make a huge change in flavour. The large commercial breweries don’t add corn or rice because it’s cheap, they add it because that’s the flavour they want. In many cases, corn or rice is more expensive than barley.
I’ll meet one unreferenced assertion with another: no, they do it primarily because it’s cheaper.
And one large brewery in Sweden stopped adding maize when it became so expensive that 100% barley malt was cheaper.
Actually, Gary’s post is correct if you read it carefully. He concedes that macros make the vast majority of beer, but American brewers, when considered individually not by market share, do not generally use adjuncts in their lagers. In other words, put the names of all American brewers in a hat, pick one out, and chances are you’re going to pick a brewery that doesn’t use adjuncts. Do the same by market share and, yes, you’re going to most likely pick a brewery that does use adjuncts. But Gary says that right there in his last sentence.
And the point about lagers not implying the use of adjuncts is absolutely correct. Now, if you say “American lager” as a style, that may imply it. “American adjunct lager” would be the term if you’re really trying to be technical and clear, as “lager” does not in any way, on its own, imply the use of adjuncts. All “lager” tells you is that the beer is brewed with a bottom-fermenting yeast at lower temperatures. If you want to continue getting technical, beers like doppelbocks and schwarzbiers are also lagers, so they don’t have to be light, even.
Seconding the above. Reading comprehension is shaky after a few beers, I know. 
American Standard beer is an adjunct beer, and you can taste the difference in adjuncts very easily. That’s why I can’t stand most of A-B’s product line - they use rice, which I hate. OTOH, I sometimes yearn for a good, corny beer and Busch Bavarian used to be the perfect blend of barley and corn. But adjuncts were used for cost savings, not because the brewers thought they tasted good. Good German brewers shuddered when they started using other grains, but the profit motive won out and they changed America’s palate.
Barley costs less than maize and a lot less than rice they use these adjuncts for the flavour profile that the US drinkers expect, not because it’s cheaper.
This post is absolute nonsense. I’ve noticed you’ve supplied no cite to your ridiculous claim. You can’t. it’s crap! The majority of beer sold is in the USA is in fact sold by the macrobrewers. So the percentages are on the side of my claim.
If you re-read my OP you’ll see I admitted that micros probably use little, if any, adjuncts.
ALL of the Top 20 selling beers use a large supply of adjuncts in their product. Only Anheuser-Busch has the guts to boldly advertise that Budweiser is made of rice. Other brewers use the term “cereal grains” which could be anything, but is not pure barley malt as a brewer would be quick to advertise that their product is “all malt”.
[/QUOTE]
Wow. Relax. Then go back and read my post again. Not only is it not “absolute nonsense,” but I didn’t make any “ridiculous claim,” and you didn’t refute a word I said.
The overwhelming majority of BEER (by volume) made in the U.S. is made by a tiny percentage of the brewers, and it uses sugar, rice, corn, or whatever to lower costs and make the beer “lighter” (less beer-like) in flavor.
The overwhelming majority of BREWERS in the U.S. don’t do that.
I get sensitive about people referring to “American brewers” as if the whole country was Coors. Some of the finest beers in the world are produced here, despite the majority of the beer drinkers in the country preferring fermented beer-like beverages with the color of urine and the flavor of water.
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:17, topic:669555”]
I get sensitive about people referring to “American brewers” as if the whole country was Coors. Some of the finest beers in the world are produced here, despite the majority of the beer drinkers in the country preferring fermented beer-like beverages with the color of urine and the flavor of water.
[/QUOTE]
You have that reversed. 
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:17, topic:669555”]
Wow. Relax.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe if you hand’t started off with the words “Not true.” Many people don’t like being incorrectly corrected. It is true the “American brewers commonly mix other grains”, when looked at by volume of beer produced. (They were his words, so he gets to choose which measure he meant.)
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:17, topic:669555”]
The overwhelming majority of BREWERS in the U.S. don’t do that.
[/QUOTE]
Your playing Clintonball with your words. By your definition it seems I would be included in that number as I occasionally home brew. When I don’t use a kit I don’t use any adjuncts.