Researcher weighs risks of glyphosate for malt barley dry-down

It’s fine to hit malting barley with glyphosate, at least theoretically.

But the challenge of doing it in the field in true farming conditions was highlighted by long-time barley researcher John O’Donovan at the Canadian Barley Symposium.

“If the farmer does everything right — correct stage, uniform dry-down is achieved — the residue levels will likely not exceed the allowable threshold,” said O’Donovan, the Agriculture Canada researcher who opened the symposium June 26.

“Assuming that the grower does everything right … the greatest risk may lie in non-uniform drydown.”

Using pre-harvest glyphosate on malting barley is a big no-no if the farmer plans to try to sell the crop to a maltster or to anybody else who plans to use it to make malt.

Maltsters and brewers fear glyphosate residue will damage the germination of barley kernels.

“There is not a maltster or brewer in Western Canada that will accept barley that has been treated with pre-harvest glyphosate.”

O’Donovan said Canadian Grain Commission and other research has shown that it is possible, at least in small-plot research conditions, to apply pre-harvest glyphosate to malting barley and neither exceed maximum residue levels nor damage germination of malting barley.

However, in real farming conditions, that could be hard to achieve because not all parts of a crop can be assumed to have the exact same level of maturity and might not dry down perfectly.

That leaves the possibility of residue and germination problems, even if rates and crops stage have been correct, O’Donovan said.

About the author


  • Kissing optional

    Just how much ®Round-up ☣️ is an acceptable level in beer?

    • ed

      Zero, but with ambient background levels in the soil, water and air so high and by default the malt barley and good and other ingredients having levels that are many fold more than in the recent past, we are far beyond that now. What to do, right????

      • Harold

        It seems that government won’t be forced, and Monsanto won’t be forced, and farmers won’t be forced, so the only logical alternative is the powerful consumers. The consumers are powerful and their unwillingness to purchase contaminated product sends a blow-back that affects the farmer and in turn hits Monsanto and in turn removes Monsanto from governmental interference. The government and Monsanto are very aware of the publics and consumers power so they feed us misinformation, conceal food information, and classify their documents to maintain their secrecy. This is what to do; when the public demands document declassifications of both government and Monsanto it will become the first step of the public coming together to clean up our problems. The govern-mental and Mon-satin know this too well and each have a campaign to discredit and remove any activist who tries to accomplish the task. When the public at large becomes the activist the government and Monsanto have no power, so now we can see what their preaching of diversity BS is all about and what it truly means; Government and corporate protection and we the divided.

    • Harold

      Logic dictates that the acceptable level of glyphosate is zero and that the so called “safe level’s” is only a damage control measure to prevent the tarnishing of Monsanto’s reputation. When we don’t buy into the “safe level” BS, Monsanto becomes the ultimate power and profit looser and so fragile is Monsanto and the like that they have much to protect. Our given individual choices are to either take from our own conscience the meanings of right and wrong or to be led by the corporate public correctness indoctrination, wherein their corporate light, there is no corporate wrong or wrong-doing other than you if you reject any of their corrections or conclusions.
      It would seem that Monsanto didn’t know that glyphosate would end up in the food and drink products or withheld their knowledge but incredibly luckily for Monsanto it just so happens that the glyphosate levels found in food and drink they just so happen to be both suitable to the corporation and the human body at the same time. Just imagine that, and the illusion is completed with a star hovering above Monsanto’s home as well
      I assume by your question that you had already predetermined that the safe level of glyphosate in beer is zero and being so I agree.

      • Kissing optional

        “…tarnish Monsanto’s reputation…”
        I like that. Had a tough day and needed that.


Stories from our other publications