On Friday I brewed up some tree beer using Leyland Cypress boughs in the strike and sparge water as well as in the mash vessel. OG was ~1.050 and I split the boil to brew up a saison and a pale ale with galaxy and sultana (denali) hops. The saison is fermenting with a wild yeast culture I captured from my neighbor's raw honey and the pale ale has Framgarden kveik. They're both fermenting at 87°F/30.5°C
The Leyland Cypress gives the beer a pleasant evergreen/christmas tree flavor that's a bit citrusy and not too overwhelming. I've brewed with this tree a number of times and thoroughly researched it so I'm fully confident that it is not toxic. I don't measure the amount of tree I put in the beer, basically just put branches into the kettle until it's annoying to try to add another one.
https://www.hunker.com/13428793/leyland-cypress-toxicity/
https://poisonousplants.massey.ac.nz/plantToxins/isocupr.html
No. Just no.
I knew some armchair researcher was going to post this crap. Toxic to ruminants does not equal toxic to humans. All parts of the Poderosa pine from the needles to the inner bark were/are a staple food of native Americans. Isocupressic acid is not toxic to humans.
https://pfaf.org/user/Plant.aspx?LatinName=Pinus+ponderosa
I don't mean to insert myself in some "armchair researcher" discussion, but Leyland Cypress is from the family Cupressaceae, not Pinaceae like the Ponderosa pine.
So how does the Ponderosa pine being edible prove anything about the leyland cypress? They are in the same class of pinopsida, but diverge and have different orders, families, genuses, and species below that.
You'd be better off comparing the leyland cypress to other cypresses than to ponderosa pines for edibility I think.
I did. Made the same argument, too.
Yes, I'm aware that they are completely different species. If you read the sources that Stickyfingeritchybum (ew, btw) posted they're talking about the toxicity of Isocupressic acid in cattle and sheep, this acid occurs in both Leyland Cypress and all parts of Ponderosa Pine. Therefore since natives ate Ponderosa Pine as a staple food (apparently the inner bark is sweet and was considered a dessert) we can conclude that Isocupressic acid is not toxic to humans. This acid is also quite high in common juniper which is what is used to brew Maltøl and Sahti and is the primary botanical in Gin. Additionally, the only reported toxic effect of this acid on cattle and sheep is inducing abortion; Pregnant people aren't advised to be drinking alcoholic beverages to begin with so kind of a double moot point.
I appreciate people being concerned for my health, but seriously, I have actually researched this beyond just googling and finding an article that ONLY talks about this being toxic to cattle and sheep and makes no mention of human toxicity. I've been brewing and drinking beers with this tree for nearly 10 years with no ill effects. Farmhouse Maltøl and Sahti brewers have been putting Isocupressic acid (via juniper) into their beers for thousands of years.
Well, no. We can say we don't know. The toxicity profile on various sites say we don't know. Most likley because no one thought to do it. https://hmdb.ca/metabolites/HMDB0253626
You are inferring its safe. Not the same thing as being safe. That's your business. Enjoy your cattle morning after pill beer. Just don't tell people it's safe and "I did the research".
Well since people have been eating it for millennia in juniper, and juniper is GRAS, I'm going to conclude that it's not a concern, you can conclude otherwise if you want. I won't ask you to drink the beer.
Did you know that hops are toxic to dogs? are you sure you still want to put them into your beer?
Reasonable points.
You should call it "Cows walk of shame" or "Moo's Morning After" possibly "You can Defetus".
LOL, those all sound extremely unappetizing
Fetus Punter Porter?