• Please visit and share your knowledge at our sister communities:
  • If you have not, please join our official Homebrewing Facebook Group!

    Homebrewing Facebook Group

Glyphosate Free Beer / Grains

Homebrew Talk

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I'm not sure there are many that understand just how non-toxic glyphosate is to non-plants:
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html

Denny, re-read the original post and watch the documentary " What's with wheat". Google it. At least watch the movie trailer.

Why would you say, "that's just not true". Please explain.

drksky, please watch too. Become informed...

Everyone should watch it.

Propaganda from a pro GMO website, several years old.

Just keep believing the poisons they spray on our foods aren't harmful.

I'm done.
So why is the side against your opinion just Propaganda from a pro GMO website, but the information from What's With Wheat should not just be taken a propaganga from anti-GMO.
Looking at the bios of the "experts" in the What's With Wheat website you have a lot of nutritionist, neurologist, organic farmers , Computer scietists, authors and a physicist and a lot of people involved in the organice/GMO-free/Paleo industry. While these people may be experts in their chosen field, experts in biology and assessing the carcinogenic effects of substances in humans I would bet they are not.

Where as the info from drksky was undertaken by Cornell University, Michigan State University, Oregon State University, and University of California at Davis with funding provided by the USDA/Extension Service/National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program.
 
Having just looked into this a little further, you do realize you are making a argument for no pesticides on grain with a movie that is a blatant copy of the "Wheat belly" diet? The website even sells "no wheat for six weeks" versions of the movie for $97.

I agree it is a bit hypocritical to call something propaganda when the information provided is blantant propaganda to press the agenda of the "experts" involved :D
 
So why is the side against your opinion just Propaganda from a pro GMO website, but the information from What's With Wheat should not just be taken a propaganga from anti-GMO.
Looking at the bios of the "experts" in the What's With Wheat website you have a lot of nutritionist, neurologist, organic farmers , Computer scietists, authors and a physicist and a lot of people involved in the organice/GMO-free/Paleo industry.

Where as the info from drksky was undertaken by Cornell University, Michigan State University, Oregon State University, and University of California at Davis with funding provided by the USDA/Extension Service/National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program.

Don't forget chiropractors!

And of course the obvious response to my link is that all those scientists are in the pocket of "big wheat" and are just shills.
 
So has anyone found a source of verified Glyphosate-free grain or are we still focused on trolling each other for believing/not believing other's accusations and claims about this chemical?
 
This looks encouraging,

"Glyphosate free in all steps of our production

While the German public is being confronted with new confusing information about the herbicide “glyphosate” lately, BESTMALZ® can undoubtedly renew its quality guarantee given last week when the first rumors of glyphosate in German beer appeared in the press. All of the barley, wheat and spelt grains used by BESTMALZ® as well as the water used in the malting process are free of glyphosate.

Consequently, malts from BESTMALZ® do not contain glyphosate which was proven in the most recent analyses of various malt types from the current crop. None of the randomly selected BESTMALZ® samples showed traces of glyphosate when analyzed by a reputed German food testing authority.

“The current glyphosate discussion may well keep the German media busy for a few more weeks,” says Dr. Axel Goehler, CEO of BESTMALZ® in Heidelberg/Germany. “Naturally, we will continue to analyze our raw materials and our malts by heart as a matter of professional routine. However, it is good to know that we can rightfully promise our customers that malts from BEST are ‘simply the best’.”
March 5th, 2016"

from http://www.bestmalz.de/en/glyphosate-free-in-all-steps-of-production/
 
This looks encouraging,

"Glyphosate free in all steps of our production

While the German public is being confronted with new confusing information about the herbicide “glyphosate” lately, BESTMALZ® can undoubtedly renew its quality guarantee given last week when the first rumors of glyphosate in German beer appeared in the press. All of the barley, wheat and spelt grains used by BESTMALZ® as well as the water used in the malting process are free of glyphosate.

Consequently, malts from BESTMALZ® do not contain glyphosate which was proven in the most recent analyses of various malt types from the current crop. None of the randomly selected BESTMALZ® samples showed traces of glyphosate when analyzed by a reputed German food testing authority.

“The current glyphosate discussion may well keep the German media busy for a few more weeks,” says Dr. Axel Goehler, CEO of BESTMALZ® in Heidelberg/Germany. “Naturally, we will continue to analyze our raw materials and our malts by heart as a matter of professional routine. However, it is good to know that we can rightfully promise our customers that malts from BEST are ‘simply the best’.”
March 5th, 2016"

from http://www.bestmalz.de/en/glyphosate-free-in-all-steps-of-production/

This is actually really good news. With 7 Bridges (Brew Organic) going out of business, I've been at a loss as to where to find more organic or even "chemical reduced" grains. Seeing as I like my results using Best Malz anyway, I'll definitely be working them into the rotation.
 
My LHBS carries their Red X variety which has me totally stoked to try with my Pumpkin Ale. Has anyone used this grain? Results?
 
Here's another:

IREKS - Bavarian Craft Brewing Malts

IREKS - Largest Family owned Bavarian Maltster
Top Quality Base, Speciality and Wheat Malts at competitive prices
From Pallets to Containers
55lb Bags, 500kg & 1000kg Super Sacks, Bulk Loads for Silo Fills
Mix and match styles to make your own pallet (no extra fees)
No handling fees or pallet charges
All IREKS Malts: Certified Glyphosate free malts
The exclusive Malt of the VLB Institute in Berlin
 
Much ado about nothing...... Glyphosate is broken down very rapidly, normally within days. This is one of the reasons it is popular. By the way, I live in Montana, and many of my friends are grain farmers.......NONE uses glyphosate to kill the plants to accelerate grain harvest. NOT a single one. This has a strong ring of BS to it. Where I do see it used is prior to planting to kill weeds. You can spray and plant a day or two later because it breaks down so rapidly.

H.W.


TOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Acute Toxicity
Glyphosate is a moderately toxic herbicide and carries the signal word WARNING on the label. Even though the LD50 values show the compound to be relatively non-toxic it can cause significant eye irritation. The toxicity of the technical product (glyphosate) and the formulated product (Roundup) is nearly the same. The acute oral LD50 in the rat is 5,600 mg/kg. Other oral LD50 values for glyphosate are 1,538 to greater than 10,000 mg/kg for mice, rabbits mg/kg, and goats (1, 5).

In a number of human volunteers, patch tests produced no visible skin changes or sensitization.
Chronic Toxicity
Subchronic and chronic tests with glyphosate have been conducted with rats, dogs, mice, and rabbits in studies lasting from 21 days to two years. With few exceptions there were no treatment-related gross (easily observable) or cellular changes (5). In a chronic feeding study with rats, no toxic effects were observed in rats given doses as high as 31 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested. No toxic effects were observed in a chronic feeding study with dogs fed up to 500 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested (8). Mice fed glyphosate for 90 days exhibited reduced body weight gains. The lifetime administration of very high amounts of glyphosate produced only a slight reduction of body weight and some microscopic liver and kidney changes. Blood chemistry, cellular components, and organ function were not affected even at the highest doses.

Hens fed massive amounts over three days and again 21 days later showed no nerve related effects.
Reproductive Effects
Most of the field and laboratory evidence shows that glyphosate produces no reproductive changes in test animals. It is unlikely that the compound would produce any reproductive effects in humans.
Teratogenic Effects
In a teratology study with rabbits, the maternal NOEL was 175 mg/kg/day and no developmental toxicity was observed in the fetuses at the highest dose tested (350 mg/kg/day) (8).

Rats given doses up to 3,500 mg/kg on days 6 to 19 of pregnancy had offspring with no teratogenic effects, but other toxic effects were observed in both the mothers and the fetuses. No toxic effects to the fetuses occurred at 1,000 mg/kg/day.
Mutagenic Effects
The compound does not cause mutations in microbes. The tests on eight different kinds of bacterial strains and on yeast cells were all negative. The compound poses little mutagenic risk to humans (6).
Carcinogenic Effects
Rats and dogs and mice fed glyphosate over a wide range of doses showed no cancer related effects directly due to the compound (4). EPA has stated that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate is not carcinogenic in humans (8).
Organ Toxicity
Glyphosate caused no changes in the rate of body weight gain, in blood, nor in kidneys or liver. The studies were conducted at doses up to 500 mg/kg (3).
Fate in Humans and Animals
Glyphosate is poorly absorbed from the digestive tract and is largely excreted unchanged by mammals. Ten days after treatment there were only minute amounts in the tissues of rats fed glyphosate for three weeks (3).

Cows, chickens, and pigs fed small amounts had undetectable levels (less than 0.05 ppm) in muscle tissue and fat. Levels in milk and eggs were also undetectable (less than 0.025 ppm). Nearly all glyphosate residues were rapidly eliminated by fish that had been exposed for 10 to 14 days once these fish were transferred to glyphosate-free water. Glyphosate has no significant potential to accumulate in animal tissue (9).
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Glyphosate is only slightly toxic to wild birds. The LC50 in both mallards and bobwhite quail is greater than 4,500 ppm. The bioaccumulation factor in chicken muscle, fat, eggs, and liver was as low as 1/10,000 (4).

Glyphosate is practically non-toxic to fish. However, Roundup was more toxic to fish than was glyphosate. In rainbow trout, for instance, the 96-hour LC50 was 8.3 mg/l with Roundup and 38 ppm with glyphosate. The LC50 for glyphosate was 120 mg/l for bluegill sunfish. An additive used in the Roundup formulation (modified tallow amine used as a surfactant) is apparently more toxic to fish than many common surfactants. For this reason, the formulation for use in aquatic situations (Rodeo) omits this ingredient. The surfactant is used to allow the compound to readily dissolve in solution and to keep the compound from balling up on the leaf surface.

There is a very low potential for the compound to build up in the tissues of aquatic invertebrates or other aquatic organisms. Glyphosate is relatively non-toxic to honeybees. Its oral and dermal LD50 is greater than 0.1 mg/ bee (7).
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE
Glyphosate is highly adsorbed on most soils especially those with high organic content. The compound is so strongly attracted to the soil that little is expected to leach from the applied area. Microbes are primarily responsible for the breakdown of the product. The time it takes for half of the product to break down ranges from 1 to 174 days. Because glyphosate is so tightly bound to the soil, little is transferred by rain or irrigation water. One estimate showed less than two percent of the applied chemical lost to runoff (4). The herbicide could move when attached to soil particles in erosion run-off. Photodecomposition plays only a minor role in environmental breakdown.

In water, glyphosate is strongly adsorbed to suspended organic and mineral matter and is broken down primarily by microorganisms also. Its half-life in pond water ranges from 12 days to 10 weeks.

Glyphosate may be extensively metabolized by some plants while remaining intact in others (2). Once in the plant tissue, the chemical is translocated throughout the plant, including to the roots.
 
1.) Wheat and Barley go through a ripening stage in which the plant naturally dies, artificially killing the plant before this happens would result in unripened grain and unusable straw. Different varieties ripen in different numbers of days. It would make absolutely no economical sense to kill the plant before it ripened.

2.) Herbicides are generally used in the spring to kill weeds before planting.

As the general population grows further away from the farm it gets easier and easier to publish BS propaganda.
 
1.) Wheat and Barley go through a ripening stage in which the plant naturally dies, artificially killing the plant before this happens would result in unripened grain and unusable straw. Different varieties ripen in different numbers of days. It would make absolutely no economical sense to kill the plant before it ripened.

.

I'm a farmer and we raise cereal crops (among other things). The process of maturity isn't quite as straightforward as is described above.

Cereals (all cultivated crops, for that matter) reach a stage of development where the kernels are fully formed but the moisture content of the grain is too high for safe, long term storage. Maturity dates vary by specific variety (there are thousnds of varieties of wheat and barley), but most reach maturity in +/- 100 days after planting. Further drying, to reach the moisture content at which the grain can be safely stored, will usually take an additional week or two.

Most regions where cereals are widely grown have growing seasons long enough to provide the necessary number of frost free days for the crops to dry naturally. In some, more northern, regions, cereals are desiccated to reach the desired moisture content before a killing frost can damage the not-quite-dry kernels. In other areas, cereal crops may be desiccated to expedite harvest so that a subsequent crop can be planted a bit earlier (regions with long growing seasons, for example).

Since most cereals (corn being a notable exception) have relatively short growing seasons, desiccating isn't necessary. There are enough places where cereals can be grown, however, which have different climatic or agronomic situations, where cereals are desiccated. The fact that glyphosate is cheap and available worldwide is a factor when a grower is considering whether or not to dessicate.

We have never found it necessary to dessicate cereals. It's not a common practice, but it is done in some parts of the world. Whether it is a safe or desireable practice is a matter of opinion which won't be resolved on a homebrew forum.

Mark
 
I'm a farmer and we raise cereal crops (among other things). The process of maturity isn't quite as straightforward as is described above.

It's pretty straightforward. Most people bite the kernel to tell what stage of ripening it's in. Killing the plants and expending extra money to dry the grain is only justified in very limited situations.
 
It's pretty straightforward. Most people bite the kernel to tell what stage of ripening it's in. Killing the plants and expending extra money to dry the grain is only justified in very limited situations.

I described the limited situations. I know-reading is hard. <sigh>

Mark
 
Feel free to discuss and disagree on technical issues or opinions, but stop the personal sniping. Thread will be closed if it continues.

doug293cz
HBT Moderator
 
I'm a farmer and we raise cereal crops (among other things). The process of maturity isn't quite as straightforward as is described above.

Cereals (all cultivated crops, for that matter) reach a stage of development where the kernels are fully formed but the moisture content of the grain is too high for safe, long term storage. Maturity dates vary by specific variety (there are thousnds of varieties of wheat and barley), but most reach maturity in +/- 100 days after planting. Further drying, to reach the moisture content at which the grain can be safely stored, will usually take an additional week or two.

Most regions where cereals are widely grown have growing seasons long enough to provide the necessary number of frost free days for the crops to dry naturally. In some, more northern, regions, cereals are desiccated to reach the desired moisture content before a killing frost can damage the not-quite-dry kernels. In other areas, cereal crops may be desiccated to expedite harvest so that a subsequent crop can be planted a bit earlier (regions with long growing seasons, for example).

Since most cereals (corn being a notable exception) have relatively short growing seasons, desiccating isn't necessary. There are enough places where cereals can be grown, however, which have different climatic or agronomic situations, where cereals are desiccated. The fact that glyphosate is cheap and available worldwide is a factor when a grower is considering whether or not to dessicate.

We have never found it necessary to dessicate cereals. It's not a common practice, but it is done in some parts of the world. Whether it is a safe or desireable practice is a matter of opinion which won't be resolved on a homebrew forum.

Mark

It's done a fair amount in Canada due to the shortness of our growing seasons.

Glyphosate is one of the least toxic things a human being can ingest in the farming cycle.
 
Truth.

No offense, but some folks think that everything they read on the internet is gospel. Educate yourself from a variety of sources and then form your own opinions.

And remember, RDWHAHB cuz nobody gets out of here alive.
 
The thing about the scientific method is that there are rarely definite conclusions and always new developments. This is especially true of the health and biomedical sciences.

This article was just published, throwing into question the certainty so many claim surrounds the complete and utter safety of agricultural agents for human health and safety:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...isrupt-microbiome-at-safe-levels-study-claims

"One of the report’s authors, Daniele Mandrioli, at the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, Italy, said significant and potentially detrimental effects from glyphosate had been detected in the gut bacteria of rat pups born to mothers, who appeared to have been unaffected themselves.

'It shouldn’t be happening and it is quite remarkable that it is,' Mandrioli said. 'Disruption of the microbiome has been associated with a number of negative health outcomes, such as obsesity, diabetes and immunological problems.'

Prof Philip J Landrigan, of New York’s Icahn School of Medicine, and also one of the research team, said: 'These early warnings must be further investigated in a comprehensive long-term study.' He added that serious health effects from the chemical might manifest as long-term cancer risk: 'That might affect a huge number of people, given the planet-wide use of the glyphosate-based herbicides.'

Controversy has raged around glyphosate since a World Health Organisation agency – the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – judged it to be a “probable human carcinogen” in 2015.

However, US and European regulators subsequently deemed it acceptable for use, a move campaigners condemned because of regulators’ use of secret industry papers and experts with alleged ties to Monsanto."​

This thread was initially brought up by someone with a legitimate concern and was shut down by cynicism and links to questionable and limited scientific data. I hope to re-open discussion for those who are seeking to ensure the safety and quality of the ingredients they use in their beer making.

Cheers.
 
giphy.gif
 
Back
Top