Learn & Discover
Learn & Discover
Adjuncts Vs. Additives
If you go on a tour of any brewery, anywhere in the world, one of the first sentences out of the guides mouth will be “To make beer you just need four ingredients, water, malted barley, hops, and yeast”. I am guilty of saying exactly this when explaining the brewing process to people, but, it’s not true, not even close.
Illustrations by Christine Jopling.
Charlotte Cook
A brewer with 13 years experience in craft beer. She has an MSc. in brewing science and has worked at some of the best breweries on the planet. Most days she can be found at her R&D brewery in south London.
The History of Working Men’s Clubs
In our Learn and Discover journey into Working Men’s Clubs we’ve established what they are and the role that they can play for its members and their community, but how did there get to be so many Working Men’s Clubs in the first place? The history of WMCs and their subsequent growth reflects the evolution of white, working class, male Britain and the slow steps it has taken towards diversification. Whilst WMCs may be born from prejudice against male workers of a lower social status, it has a history that affects drinkers across the class spectrum, and provides a valued insight into the drinking culture of today.
Adjuncts Vs. Additives
If you go on a tour of any brewery, anywhere in the world, one of the first sentences out of the guides mouth will be “To make beer you just need four ingredients, water, malted barley, hops, and yeast”. I am guilty of saying exactly this when explaining the brewing process to people, but, it’s not true, not even close.
Illustrations by Christine Jopling.
Rachel Hendry
A wine and cider writer, featured in Wine52’s Glug magazine, Pellicle magazine, Burum Collective and Two Belly. The mind behind wine newsletter J’adore le Plonk and an untiring advocate for spritzing every drink she can get her hands on.
Yes, the Reinheitsgebot of 1516, also known as the German purity law, dictates that beer is made of water, malt and hops, but just like we discovered that beer requires yeast to ferment (microorganisms hadn’t been discovered when this law was laid down), we may need a bit more than just those basics. In recent years’ brewers have discovered that a wide range of lotions, potions and powders can be used in beer to enhance it and make the end product better.
Some of these have been, in my opinion, unfairly derided and subsequently spoken of in cloak and dagger terms, with brewers presenting a front of using the basic ingredients, whilst dosing up on Murphy’s finest behind closed doors. This brewing equivalent of hiding your sins from God, whilst biting down on a brandy soused Ortolan, is unhelpful in allowing consumers to make informed choices about which beer to choose, and why some of these additions are not as bad as they may think, and others they may choose to avoid.
Some of these have been, in my opinion, unfairly derided and subsequently spoken of in cloak and dagger terms, with brewers presenting a front of using the basic ingredients, whilst dosing up on Murphy’s finest behind closed doors. This brewing equivalent of hiding your sins from God, whilst biting down on a brandy soused Ortolan, is unhelpful in allowing consumers to make informed choices about which beer to choose, and why some of these additions are not as bad as they may think, and others they may choose to avoid.
Adjunct has been a dirty word in craft brewing circles. Brewers using a wholly malt based grist for their beers looked at the likes of Budweiser and Carling, with their reliance on corn and rice, as lesser and lazy. Taking the cheaper and easier way out, rather than putting in the hard graft and taking on the expense of using pure malt. More recently adjunct has been used to describe beers created with artificial flavours such as peanut butter and jam doughnut, these are often sweet and designed to appeal to the market for a short period of time, rather than becoming an epoch defining brew.
Additives are also looked upon unfavourably, being associated with unwholesome preservatives and unnatural and unknowable bottles of “chemicals” brimming over with glowing green bubbles. The truth is, many brewers are reliant on these exogenous additives. They help to manage fermentation, to prevent dangerous boil overs, help the yeast to stay healthy, and reduce unwanted compounds, such a diacetyl and sulphur. What I hope to show is that these are not always unwanted and unholy things that must be exorcised from the brewery, but to demystify them, and allow you to decide where you stand on the great additive and adjunct debate.
“After just a year of formation the CIU had helped 13 clubs to begin, growing to 55 by its second.”
— Rachel Hendry
“What I hope to show is that these are not always unwanted and unholy things that must be exorcised from the brewery, but to demystify them, and allow you to decide where you stand on the great additive and adjunct debate.”
— Charlotte Cook
Adjunct has been a dirty word in craft brewing circles. Brewers using a wholly malt based grist for their beers looked at the likes of Budweiser and Carling, with their reliance on corn and rice, as lesser and lazy. Taking the cheaper and easier way out, rather than putting in the hard graft and taking on the expense of using pure malt. More recently adjunct has been used to describe beers created with artificial flavours such as peanut butter and jam doughnut, these are often sweet and designed to appeal to the market for a short period of time, rather than becoming an epoch defining brew.
Additives are also looked upon unfavourably, being associated with unwholesome preservatives and unnatural and unknowable bottles of “chemicals” brimming over with glowing green bubbles. The truth is, many brewers are reliant on these exogenous additives. They help to manage fermentation, to prevent dangerous boil overs, help the yeast to stay healthy, and reduce unwanted compounds, such a diacetyl and sulphur. What I hope to show is that these are not always unwanted and unholy things that must be exorcised from the brewery, but to demystify them, and allow you to decide where you stand on the great additive and adjunct debate.
Or LOG IN for unlimited access to Learn & Discover
JOIN CAMRA
Or JOIN CAMRA for unlimited access to Learn & Discover
Section sub title goes here
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nullam lobortis vel sapien nec faucibus. Morbi consectetur pulvinar lectus, vitae sodales tellus. Sed sagittis aliquam convallis. Duis mollis libero eu massa luctus, id euismod urna fringilla. Aenean condimentum accumsan leo nec eleifend. Maecenas ullamcorper est non justo pulvinar accumsan. Nam facilisis, lacus a aliquet ornare, metus velit mattis leo, eget sodales quam ligula et nisl.
Brewhouse Adjuncts
Rice and corn are the two most common Brewhouse adjuncts, usually added for their sugar content and ability to give beers a dry and refreshing finish. Using these ingredients is not new, in fact research published this year suggests that rice beer was being brewed in Southern China in Neolithic times, some 9,000 years ago (Lui, et al., 2023).
Rice and corn cannot simply be mashed like malted barley. The structure of the grain means that it must first gelatanised in an external cooker. Gelatinisation is the process of heating the adjunct to the point that the starch granules, trapped within the protein matrix of the adjunct, swell and lose their structure, opening the starch up to enzyme attack. The same process takes place with malted barley in the mash tun, but adjuncts such as rice and corn have a gelatinisation temperature higher than malt, and so to gelatinise both in the same vessel would inactivate the malt enzymes, preventing the hydrolisation of the starches. Maize will gelatinise at 77’c and rice at 82’c, whilst barley malt will gelatinise at a relatively balmy 64’c.
Consequently, the rice and corn must be gelatinised before combining with the barley mash, either through cooking in a separate vessel, or by using flaked adjuncts, which have been steam treated to achieve gelatinisation before dehydrating, allowing brewers to add them directly to the mash.
Brewhouse Adjuncts
Rice and corn are the two most common Brewhouse adjuncts, usually added for their sugar content and ability to give beers a dry and refreshing finish. Using these ingredients is not new, in fact research published this year suggests that rice beer was being brewed in Southern China in Neolithic times, some 9,000 years ago (Lui, et al., 2023).
Rice and corn cannot simply be mashed like malted barley. The structure of the grain means that it must first gelatanised in an external cooker. Gelatinisation is the process of heating the adjunct to the point that the starch granules, trapped within the protein matrix of the adjunct, swell and lose their structure, opening the starch up to enzyme attack. The same process takes place with malted barley in the mash tun, but adjuncts such as rice and corn have a gelatinisation temperature higher than malt, and so to gelatinise both in the same vessel would inactivate the malt enzymes, preventing the hydrolisation of the starches. Maize will gelatinise at 77’c and rice at 82’c, whilst barley malt will gelatinise at a relatively balmy 64’c.
Consequently, the rice and corn must be gelatinised before combining with the barley mash, either through cooking in a separate vessel, or by using flaked adjuncts, which have been steam treated to achieve gelatinisation before dehydrating, allowing brewers to add them directly to the mash.
There are issues with using these adjuncts. As they don’t contain hydrolysing enzymes (primarily alpha and beta amylase) that break down the starches into fermentable sugars, brewers using high levels of adjunct are reliant on there being sufficient levels of enzymes in the mash from the malted barley. High levels of adjuncts can also lead to reduced levels of Free Amino Nitrogen in wort, which can lead to sluggish fermentations. The solution is to dose these mashes with exogenous enzymes to make up the shortfall. These enzymes are industrially produced, and are derived from microbial colonies, a source of enzymes that may not sit well with those who are determined to have a wholly farm to glass approach to their beer.
The main case that craft brewers have lodged against macro brewers using rice and corn has been that their use saves money but decreases flavour (Briggs, 1998). Indeed, they will give beer a drier finish and more delicate character, but they are not necessarily cheaper. For a small craft brewer, 25kg of flaked rice will cost £47.70 whilst 25kg of pale ale malt comes in at £24.99, at the time of writing.
There are issues with using these adjuncts. As they don’t contain hydrolysing enzymes (primarily alpha and beta amylase) that break down the starches into fermentable sugars, brewers using high levels of adjunct are reliant on there being sufficient levels of enzymes in the mash from the malted barley. High levels of adjuncts can also lead to reduced levels of Free Amino Nitrogen in wort, which can lead to sluggish fermentations. The solution is to dose these mashes with exogenous enzymes to make up the shortfall. These enzymes are industrially produced, and are derived from microbial colonies, a source of enzymes that may not sit well with those who are determined to have a wholly farm to glass approach to their beer.
The main case that craft brewers have lodged against macro brewers using rice and corn has been that their use saves money but decreases flavour (Briggs, 1998). Indeed, they will give beer a drier finish and more delicate character, but they are not necessarily cheaper. For a small craft brewer, 25kg of flaked rice will cost £47.70 whilst 25kg of pale ale malt comes in at £24.99, at the time of writing.
Why rice and corn have had such a negative image in craft brewing circles is uncertain. Some recent research carried out in Mexico looked at consumer liking of beers made wholly from corn and beers made from corn and malted barley (Romero-Medina., 2018). The results showed that consumers rated the corn beers more highly when they were informed that the beer was made with corn, but overall, consumers preferred beers made with both corn and malted barley. This shows that consumers knowledge about the ingredients used in beer influences their perception of the drink. Interestingly, consumers in Mexico, where corn is an indigenous ingredient, had higher expectations of the corn beers than malt beers. This shows that our perceptions of ingredient quality is highly influenced by societal norms, and in this instance, the polemic of certain craft breweries has had a strong impact in the West on the perception of adjuncts in brewing.
Additives and Processing Aids
Next, we come to look at all the other additions that take place in the brewery. These range from silicone based anti-foams to isinglass and enzymes that reduce gluten.
Some of these are considered to be additives, and others processing aids. The difference being, that processing aids are used to create the final product, but aren’t found in the final product, whereas additives make it into the glass. Even though the processing aids aren’t consumed, some of their use remains controversial. Here I’m going to treat them under the same umbrella, and discuss some of the most controversial and commonly used Brewhouse additions.
Anti-Foam
Antifoams have a wide range of applications in the brewery. They prevent the protein and alpha acid complexes that crate foam from forming, which is especially important in the kettle, where a boil over of hot wort can prove fatal.
Most brewery antifoams are made from a silicone base, these products reduce surface tension and thin the bubble wall, displacing the surfactants that are allowing the foam to form, rupturing the structure. The issue that silicone based processing aids face from both the brewing industry and consumers is the idea that adding something that seems so processed and chemical somehow detracts from the healthiness of the beer. It was found in a 1977 paper that the silicone is actually adsorbed onto the cell wall of the yeast used during fermentation, and thus removed when the yeast is removed (Jayatissa., 1977). The levels of silicone are further reduced by filtration, so the likely culprit for a headless beer in your local is more likely to be a dirty glass or lines, rather than the use of antifoam that greatly reduces the risks to brewers.
Beer foaming will lead to the loss of foam positive proteins, so by using antifoam in the kettle and during fermentation you can preserve head retention in the final product, alongside increasing alpha acid utilisation. A hop-based antifoam will help prevent loss of beer and alpha acids from the fermenter (as foam soiling is deposited on the vessel side during foaming during fermentation, and beer can easily overspill its container during a vigorous fermentation).
Research in 2014 suggested better results with the silicone antifoam, but a more natural version is available for those who wish to use it (Muller-Afferman., 2014).
Additives and Processing Aids
Next, we come to look at all the other additions that take place in the brewery. These range from silicone based anti-foams to isinglass and enzymes that reduce gluten.
Some of these are considered to be additives, and others processing aids. The difference being, that processing aids are used to create the final product, but aren’t found in the final product, whereas additives make it into the glass. Even though the processing aids aren’t consumed, some of their use remains controversial. Here I’m going to treat them under the same umbrella, and discuss some of the most controversial and commonly used Brewhouse additions.
Anti-Foam
Antifoams have a wide range of applications in the brewery. They prevent the protein and alpha acid complexes that crate foam from forming, which is especially important in the kettle, where a boil over of hot wort can prove fatal.
Most brewery antifoams are made from a silicone base, these products reduce surface tension and thin the bubble wall, displacing the surfactants that are allowing the foam to form, rupturing the structure. The issue that silicone based processing aids face from both the brewing industry and consumers is the idea that adding something that seems so processed and chemical somehow detracts from the healthiness of the beer. It was found in a 1977 paper that the silicone is actually adsorbed onto the cell wall of the yeast used during fermentation, and thus removed when the yeast is removed (Jayatissa., 1977). The levels of silicone are further reduced by filtration, so the likely culprit for a headless beer in your local is more likely to be a dirty glass or lines, rather than the use of antifoam that greatly reduces the risks to brewers.
Beer foaming will lead to the loss of foam positive proteins, so by using antifoam in the kettle and during fermentation you can preserve head retention in the final product, alongside increasing alpha acid utilisation. A hop-based antifoam will help prevent loss of beer and alpha acids from the fermenter (as foam soiling is deposited on the vessel side during foaming during fermentation, and beer can easily overspill its container during a vigorous fermentation).
Research in 2014 suggested better results with the silicone antifoam, but a more natural version is available for those who wish to use it (Muller-Afferman., 2014)
Additives and Processing Aids
Next, we come to look at all the other additions that take place in the brewery. These range from silicone based anti-foams to isinglass and enzymes that reduce gluten.
Some of these are considered to be additives, and others processing aids. The difference being, that processing aids are used to create the final product, but aren’t found in the final product, whereas additives make it into the glass. Even though the processing aids aren’t consumed, some of their use remains controversial. Here I’m going to treat them under the same umbrella, and discuss some of the most controversial and commonly used Brewhouse additions.
Anti-Foam
Antifoams have a wide range of applications in the brewery. They prevent the protein and alpha acid complexes that crate foam from forming, which is especially important in the kettle, where a boil over of hot wort can prove fatal.
Most brewery antifoams are made from a silicone base, these products reduce surface tension and thin the bubble wall, displacing the surfactants that are allowing the foam to form, rupturing the structure. The issue that silicone based processing aids face from both the brewing industry and consumers is the idea that adding something that seems so processed and chemical somehow detracts from the healthiness of the beer. It was found in a 1977 paper that the silicone is actually adsorbed onto the cell wall of the yeast used during fermentation, and thus removed when the yeast is removed (Jayatissa., 1977). The levels of silicone are further reduced by filtration, so the likely culprit for a headless beer in your local is more likely to be a dirty glass or lines, rather than the use of antifoam that greatly reduces the risks to brewers.
Beer foaming will lead to the loss of foam positive proteins, so by using antifoam in the kettle and during fermentation you can preserve head retention in the final product, alongside increasing alpha acid utilisation. A hop-based antifoam will help prevent loss of beer and alpha acids from the fermenter (as foam soiling is deposited on the vessel side during foaming during fermentation, and beer can easily overspill its container during a vigorous fermentation).
Research in 2014 suggested better results with the silicone antifoam, but a more natural version is available for those who wish to use it (Muller-Afferman., 2014)
“This brewing equivalent of hiding your sins from God, whilst biting down on a brandy soused Ortolan, is unhelpful in allowing consumers to make informed choices about which beer to choose, and why some of these additions are not as bad as they may think, and others they may choose to avoid.”
— Charlotte Cook
“Arguments for and against the consumption of alcohol in Working Men’s Clubs went on for some time until 1865 when Solley decided, for the sake of the growth and popularisation of WMCs, to allow individual clubs to make their own decision about the sale of alcohol. “
— Rachel Hendry
Yeast Nutrients
Brewers commonly add yeast nutrients to wort, this helps to ensure a good fermentation and helps reduce some of the less desirable flavour compounds produced during fermentation.
Zinc
Zinc is commonly added to wort, and yeast requires at least 0.15mg/litre for a healthy fermentation. Zinc is an important cofactor for many yeast enzymes (Zhao, 2011), but about 98% of the zinc present in malt is lost to the spent grain and hot break (Nobis, 2022). To counter this, and to ensure a healthy level of zinc in the wort, many brewers add a small amount of zinc sulphate heptahydrate.
The use of zinc is not without its detractors, and many brewers consider its use unnecessary, and an accidental overdose of 0.6mg/litre can inhibit yeast growth (Priest, Handbook of Brewing) and lead to higher alcohol formation (Walker, 2011). The American Society of Brewing Chemists suggests that control of the bioavailability of zinc, including the use of supplementation, plays an important role in fermentation performance and final product quality.
For those who are wholly opposed to supplemental zinc dosing, the use of less well modified malt and some malting adjustments can increase the bioavailability of zinc and create changes to its binding form, resulting in fewer losses of endogenous zinc (Nobis, 2022). Some research has proposed the novel solution of reintroducing hot break into fermenting wort, but this presents the risk of adding unwanted lipids and degradation products back into the wort (Kuhbeck, 2006).
Yeast Nutrients
Brewers commonly add yeast nutrients to wort, this helps to ensure a good fermentation and helps reduce some of the less desirable flavour compounds produced during fermentation.
Zinc
Zinc is commonly added to wort, and yeast requires at least 0.15mg/litre for a healthy fermentation. Zinc is an important cofactor for many yeast enzymes (Zhao, 2011), but about 98% of the zinc present in malt is lost to the spent grain and hot break (Nobis, 2022). To counter this, and to ensure a healthy level of zinc in the wort, many brewers add a small amount of zinc sulphate heptahydrate.
The use of zinc is not without its detractors, and many brewers consider its use unnecessary, and an accidental overdose of 0.6mg/litre can inhibit yeast growth (Priest, Handbook of Brewing) and lead to higher alcohol formation (Walker, 2011). The American Society of Brewing Chemists suggests that control of the bioavailability of zinc, including the use of supplementation, plays an important role in fermentation performance and final product quality.
For those who are wholly opposed to supplemental zinc dosing, the use of less well modified malt and some malting adjustments can increase the bioavailability of zinc and create changes to its binding form, resulting in fewer losses of endogenous zinc (Nobis, 2022). Some research has proposed the novel solution of reintroducing hot break into fermenting wort, but this presents the risk of adding unwanted lipids and degradation products back into the wort (Kuhbeck, 2006).
Valine
Some brewers choose to dose supplemental valine to wort. Valine is one of the amino acids produced by yeast, and the byproducts of this synthesis are vicinal diketones, more commonly known to beer drinkers as diacetyl. The theory is that by ensuring that yeast already has a robust source of valine in the wort, there is less need to synthesise it, and thus the diacetyl spike will be absent, or at the very least reduced. Research by Krogerus and Gibson (2013) showed that supplementation of valine and other branched-chain amino acids may be an effective way of managing diacetyl formation in the Brewhouse.
This saves time and money, as a long diacetyl rest can cause a bottle neck in the brewery. Careful management is still required, as old yeast is not able to reduce diacetyl spikes as effectively, even with supplementation, and if yeast is suffering from mitochondrial deficiency, then the chances of diacetyl reduction are slim to none.
Some recent Finnish research (Lin, et al., 2022) has looked at dosing the mash with endo- and exo-proteases, which can liberate the amino acids required from the malt in the mash tun, and making them freely available to yeast from the outset. Thus, reducing the diacetyl spike and promoting the formation of positive ester characteristics. The researchers found that on a laboratory scale the levels of the amino acids increased twofold compared to a control fermentation, not treated with enzymes. This is promising, but requires more research and large scale commercial testing before being rolled out to production brewers.
Valine
Some brewers choose to dose supplemental valine to wort. Valine is one of the amino acids produced by yeast, and the byproducts of this synthesis are vicinal diketones, more commonly known to beer drinkers as diacetyl. The theory is that by ensuring that yeast already has a robust source of valine in the wort, there is less need to synthesise it, and thus the diacetyl spike will be absent, or at the very least reduced. Research by Krogerus and Gibson (2013) showed that supplementation of valine and other branched-chain amino acids may be an effective way of managing diacetyl formation in the Brewhouse.
This saves time and money, as a long diacetyl rest can cause a bottle neck in the brewery. Careful management is still required, as old yeast is not able to reduce diacetyl spikes as effectively, even with supplementation, and if yeast is suffering from mitochondrial deficiency, then the chances of diacetyl reduction are slim to none.
Some recent Finnish research (Lin, et al., 2022) has looked at dosing the mash with endo- and exo-proteases, which can liberate the amino acids required from the malt in the mash tun, and making them freely available to yeast from the outset. Thus, reducing the diacetyl spike and promoting the formation of positive ester characteristics. The researchers found that on a laboratory scale the levels of the amino acids increased twofold compared to a control fermentation, not treated with enzymes. This is promising, but requires more research and large scale commercial testing before being rolled out to production brewers.
Sulphur reduction
Hydrogen sulphate is a natural by-product of fermentation. It is especially prevalent in lager fermentations, and every brewer has arrived, bleary eyed, to be greeted by the unmistakable stink of rotten eggs first thing in the morning. Sulphur molecules in beer are volatile, and during fermentation, as the CO2 passes through the wort, the sulphur is carried with it and blown off to the atmosphere. A gentle rouse, bubbling CO2 through the beer, can also rid it of unwanted sulphur.
Another approach is to dose Zetolite, an aluminosiicate impregnated with either zinc or copper ions. These ions are required by yeast, and by dosing zinc before fermentation, or copper at the end of fermentation, the yeast is stimulated and can drive the sulphur compounds off. Copper must not be added to beer that has been de-yeasted, as copper is a potent pro-oxidant, and doses as low as 10 parts per billion can have a measurable impact on the oxidative stability of beer. (Jenkins, et al., 2017)
Sulphur reduction
Hydrogen sulphate is a natural by-product of fermentation. It is especially prevalent in lager fermentations, and every brewer has arrived, bleary eyed, to be greeted by the unmistakable stink of rotten eggs first thing in the morning. Sulphur molecules in beer are volatile, and during fermentation, as the CO2 passes through the wort, the sulphur is carried with it and blown off to the atmosphere. A gentle rouse, bubbling CO2 through the beer, can also rid it of unwanted sulphur.
Another approach is to dose Zetolite, an aluminosiicate impregnated with either zinc or copper ions. These ions are required by yeast, and by dosing zinc before fermentation, or copper at the end of fermentation, the yeast is stimulated and can drive the sulphur compounds off. Copper must not be added to beer that has been de-yeasted, as copper is a potent pro-oxidant, and doses as low as 10 parts per billion can have a measurable impact on the oxidative stability of beer. (Jenkins, et al., 2017)
“Some of these are considered to be additives, and others processing aids. The difference being, that processing aids are used to create the final product, but aren’t found in the final product, whereas additives make it into the glass.”
— Charlotte Cook
“The post-war boom led to the peak of the WMCs popularity“
— Rachel Hendry
Finings
Another victim of bad publicity is isinglass, and many breweries proudly proclaim that they don’t use “fish guts” in their beer. Isinglass is, of course, not fish guts. It is highly processed and purified collagen derived from the swim bladders of certain tropical fish, not that that makes it sound much more appetising.
Isinglass is an exceptionally good clarifying agent, binding to yeast cells and forming flocs which are removed via sedimentation or filtration. Research in 2007 showed that only very low levels of isinglass residue were found to remain in finished beers, and bottled and canned beers in fact showed levels below the level of quantification. There were slightly higher levels found in kegged and cask beer, but these were still below 5mg/litre. (Baxter, et al., 2007). This doesn’t offer much reassurance for people who wish to avoid fish products for ethical or dietary reasons, but some vegan alternatives and novel approaches have been explored.
It was found that concentrated avian collagen can work as well as isinglass without negatively impacting the quality of beer. Avian collagen, derived from raw chicken skin, probably has less appeal than fish collagen (Walker, et al., 2007). Pea protein also works well, and has been applied commercially to beer and wine, offering a vegan alternative that is also more allergen-free than fish. These finings are less wholly reliable than collagen finings, and the phenolic make-up of the beer will impact on their effectiveness (Segade et al., 2019). Most brewers seem to be content to sacrifice a tiny bit of clarity to make their beer accessible to all.
Finings
Another victim of bad publicity is isinglass, and many breweries proudly proclaim that they don’t use “fish guts” in their beer. Isinglass is, of course, not fish guts. It is highly processed and purified collagen derived from the swim bladders of certain tropical fish, not that that makes it sound much more appetising.
Isinglass is an exceptionally good clarifying agent, binding to yeast cells and forming flocs which are removed via sedimentation or filtration. Research in 2007 showed that only very low levels of isinglass residue were found to remain in finished beers, and bottled and canned beers in fact showed levels below the level of quantification. There were slightly higher levels found in kegged and cask beer, but these were still below 5mg/litre. (Baxter, et al., 2007). This doesn’t offer much reassurance for people who wish to avoid fish products for ethical or dietary reasons, but some vegan alternatives and novel approaches have been explored.
It was found that concentrated avian collagen can work as well as isinglass without negatively impacting the quality of beer. Avian collagen, derived from raw chicken skin, probably has less appeal than fish collagen (Walker, et al., 2007). Pea protein also works well, and has been applied commercially to beer and wine, offering a vegan alternative that is also more allergen-free than fish. These finings are less wholly reliable than collagen finings, and the phenolic make-up of the beer will impact on their effectiveness (Segade et al., 2019). Most brewers seem to be content to sacrifice a tiny bit of clarity to make their beer accessible to all.
Enzymes
Enzymes are commonly used in the brewery, either to enhance the action of the endogenous enzymes, especially in a high adjunct mash, or to help the process along in certain ways.
Enzymes such as Amyloglucosidase will reduce dextrins down to fermentable sugars and is popular in the production of extra dry or low carbohydrate beers, and was an integral ingredient in the development of the Brut IPA in the late 2010’s. Again, these are produced from aspergillus, and can be used to revive a stuck fermentation, by liberating the fermentable sugars to allow yeast to ferment. However, if a beer is not filtered to remove all the yeast, this fermentation can carry on into packaging, leading to the potential for exploding cans and an expensive recall.
Alpha Acetolactate Decarboxylase reduces the precursor to diacetyl, again reducing the diacetyl spike when dosed into beer prior to fermentation. This enzyme only acts on the diacetyl precursor, speeding up maturation. Some brewers will use this in combination with valine, and others will eschew it completely, in the belief that speeding up part of the process removes and important part of the maturation process. ALDC is also not cheap, with a kilo coming in at about £200.
Enzymes
Enzymes are commonly used in the brewery, either to enhance the action of the endogenous enzymes, especially in a high adjunct mash, or to help the process along in certain ways.
Enzymes such as Amyloglucosidase will reduce dextrins down to fermentable sugars and is popular in the production of extra dry or low carbohydrate beers, and was an integral ingredient in the development of the Brut IPA in the late 2010’s. Again, these are produced from aspergillus, and can be used to revive a stuck fermentation, by liberating the fermentable sugars to allow yeast to ferment. However, if a beer is not filtered to remove all the yeast, this fermentation can carry on into packaging, leading to the potential for exploding cans and an expensive recall.
Alpha Acetolactate Decarboxylase reduces the precursor to diacetyl, again reducing the diacetyl spike when dosed into beer prior to fermentation. This enzyme only acts on the diacetyl precursor, speeding up maturation. Some brewers will use this in combination with valine, and others will eschew it completely, in the belief that speeding up part of the process removes and important part of the maturation process. ALDC is also not cheap, with a kilo coming in at about £200.
Brewers Clarex is possibly the most controversial enzyme currently in use. Originally it was designed as a clarifying agent, but the rather useful side effect of its ability to reduce gluten was observed. Some gluten is hydrolysed during the brewing process, but some gluten containing protein material remains, which presents a problem for people with gluten sensitivity. Clarex contains a proline-specific peptidase, which reduces the haze forming peptides and proteins, which includes gluten, found in the hordein fraction of the barley kernel, where it is a storage protein for the grain. Clarex can be used to reduce the gluten level in beer to below 20mg/kg, suggesting that it can be used to turn standard beers into beer that is suitable for those with a gluten intolerance (Akeroyd, et al., 2016).
Some more recent research seems to indicate that this may not be the case (Nye-Wood et al., 2023). The study looked at gluten free and regular beers, and compared the traditional gluten measurement system (which uses a measurement system ELISA) versus mass spectrometry. They found that some beers declared gluten free using the ELISA system did contain gluten peptides, which could elicit an immunogenic response in sensitive individuals.
The researchers found that in nine beers declared to contain under 20mg/kg of gluten measured by ELISA, hordein derived peptides were found using mass spectrometry in all the beers tested, with three containing intact epitopes that are defined as immunogenic for sufferers of celiac disease. Additionally, eight of those beers where found to contain wheat contaminants, suggesting that contamination takes place at some point in the production or packaging processes. This mismatch in measurement shows that brewers cannot be complacent in placing something declared as hypoallergenic on the market, and breweries must be vigilant in ensuring their testing is sufficient as it is evident that the standard ELISA testing can provide variable results. The final risk assessment therefore lies with the consumer, which is not a satisfactory situation to place beer drinkers in, especially ones who could be made unwell from complacency.
Brewers Clarex contains a proline-specific peptidase, which reduces the haze forming peptides and proteins, which includes gluten, found in the hordein fraction of the barley kernel, where it is a storage protein for the grain. Clarex can be used to reduce the gluten level in beer to below 20mg/kg, suggesting that it can be used to turn standard beers into beer that is suitable for those with a gluten intolerance (Akeroyd, et al., 2016).
Some more recent research seems to indicate that this may not be the case (Nye-Wood et al., 2023). The study looked at gluten free and regular beers, and compared the traditional gluten measurement system (which uses a measurement system ELISA) versus mass spectrometry. They found that some beers declared gluten free using the ELISA system did contain gluten peptides, which could elicit an immunogenic response in sensitive individuals.
The researchers found that in nine beers declared to contain under 20mg/kg of gluten measured by ELISA, hordein derived peptides were found using mass spectrometry in all the beers tested, with three containing intact epitopes that are defined as immunogenic for sufferers of celiac disease. Additionally, eight of those beers where found to contain wheat contaminants, suggesting that contamination takes place at some point in the production or packaging processes. This mismatch in measurement shows that brewers cannot be complacent in placing something declared as hypoallergenic on the market, and breweries must be vigilant in ensuring their testing is sufficient as it is evident that the standard ELISA testing can provide variable results. The final risk assessment therefore lies with the consumer, which is not a satisfactory situation to place beer drinkers in, especially ones who could be made unwell from complacency.
Conclusions
As you can see, some additives and adjuncts have suffered from negative PR, some have been touted as a wonder solution that has been shown to be less than miraculous, and others are simply ways in which a brewer can improve their product and make their work environment safer.
Brewers are keen to present their product as being created from the best and most wholesome ingredients, but technology has improved since 1516, and so the range of tools available to the brewer has expanded accordingly. Brewers are unlikely to advertise the use of some of these ingredients, and the casual drinker likely has no idea they exist. Some drinkers may choose to examine processing in their favourite brewery more closely, but most, I suspect, will simply not want to know how the sausage is made.
Conclusions
As you can see, some additives and adjuncts have suffered from negative PR, some have been touted as a wonder solution that has been shown to be less than miraculous, and others are simply ways in which a brewer can improve their product and make their work environment safer.
Brewers are keen to present their product as being created from the best and most wholesome ingredients, but technology has improved since 1516, and so the range of tools available to the brewer has expanded accordingly. Brewers are unlikely to advertise the use of some of these ingredients, and the casual drinker likely has no idea they exist. Some drinkers may choose to examine processing in their favourite brewery more closely, but most, I suspect, will simply not want to know how the sausage is made.
Further Reading
Liu, L., Wang, H., Sun, H., & Chen, X. (2023). Serving red rice beer to the ancestors ca. 9000 years ago at Xiaohuangshan early Neolithic site in south China. The Holocene, 33(8), 1012-1020. https://doi.org/10.1177/09596836231169995
Romero-Medina, Angélica & Escalona-Buendía, Héctor & Verde-Calvo, J. & Lelievre-Desmas, M. (2018). “Influence of product information in consumer’s liking of artisan corn beers”. 10.13140/RG.2.2.34991.15527.
Jayatissa, Perera & Rose, A.. (1977). INVOLVEMENT OF WALL COMPONENTS IN ADSORPTION OF SILICONE ANTIFOAM TO SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 83. 10.1002/j.2050-0416.1977.tb03816.x.
Müller-Auffermann, K. & Contreras, A. & Dünzer, N. & Jacob, F.. (2014). Evaluation of the influence of antifoam products on yeast, tank cleaning and the chemical/physical properties of beer. BrewingScience. 67. 48-59.
Zhao XQ, Bai FW. Zinc and yeast stress tolerance: micronutrient plays a big role. J Biotechnol. 2012 Apr 30;158(4):176-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2011.06.038. Epub 2011 Jul 6. PMID: 21763361.
Krogerus, Kristoffer & Gibson, Brian. (2013). Influence of valine and other amino acids on total diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione levels during fermentation of brewer’s wort. Applied microbiology and biotechnology. 97. 10.1007/s00253-013-4955-1.
Lin, Claire & Petersen, Mikael & Mauch, Alexander & Gottlieb, Andrea. (2022). Towards lager beer aroma improvement via selective amino acid release by proteases during mashing. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 128. 10.1002/jib.682.
Jenkins, David & James, Sue & Dehrmann, Frieda & Smart, Katherine & Cook, David. (2017). The impacts of copper, iron and manganese metal ions on the EPR assessment of beer oxidative stability.. Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists. 76. 10.1080/03610470.2017.1402585.
Baxter, E. & Cooper, Daniel & Fisher, Gillian & Muller, Robert. (2007). Analysis of Isinglass Residues in Beer. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 113. 10.1002/j.2050-0416.2007.tb00268.x.
Segade, Susana & Paissoni, Maria & Vilanova, Mar & Gerbi, Vincenzo & Rolle, Luca & Giacosa, Simone. (2019). Phenolic Composition Influences the Effectiveness of Fining Agents in Vegan-Friendly Red Wine Production. Molecules. 25. 120. 10.3390/molecules25010120.
Kemp, Belinda & Marangon, Matteo & Curioni, Andrea & Waters, Elizabeth & Marchal, Richard. (2022). New directions in stabilization, clarification, and fining. 10.1016/B978-0-08-102065-4.00002-X.
Walker, Samantha & Carmen, M. & Camarena, Donet & Freeman, Gary. (2007). Alternatives to Isinglass for Beer Clarification. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 113. 10.1002/j.2050-0416.2007.tb00761.x.
Akeroyd, Michiel & Zandycke, Sylvie & Hartog, Joost & Mutsaers, Jozé & Edens, Luppo & Berg, Marco & Christis, Chantal. (2016). AN-PEP, Proline-Specific Endopeptidase, Degrades All Known Immunostimulatory Gluten Peptides in Beer Made from Barley Malt. ASBCJ. 74. 91-99. 10.1094/ASBCJ-2016-2300-01.
Nye-Wood, Mitchell & Byrne, Keren & Stockwell, Sally & Juhasz, Angela & Bose, Utpal & Colgrave, Michelle. (2023). Low Gluten Beers Contain Variable Gluten and Immunogenic Epitope Content. Foods. 12. 3252. 10.3390/foods12173252.
