Cattle have long been accused of being among the top enemies of the climate. Despite the fact that creatures resembling our favourite Sunday dinners have been roaming the surface of the planet in their countless numbers for millions of years, climate warriors cannot distinguish between a cow, a car and a coal-fired power plant. Eating beef is destroying the planet, they claim. Some have demanded that livestock farming be abolished altogether and that governments intervene to force us into veganism by legislation. Others think that we can be ‘nudged’ into lentil-eating by re-branding it as a ‘plant-based lifestyle’. At the softer end of climate wars, however, are the innovators, who claim to have found a way to stop cows burping and farting ‘planet-destroying’ gases. The problem for them is that people aren’t buying that claim.
This week, Arla Foods U.K. announced a trial of dairy cow feed additive Bovaer. The additive is marketed by dsm-firmenich – a decapitalised “purpose-led company”, which despite DSM starting out as a coal firm, now claims to be a supplier of “science-based products, services and groundbreaking innovation fundamental to the health, well-being and sustainability of farm animals”. The trial will see milk produced from cows fed with Bovaer being sold in Morrisons, Tesco and Aldi supermarkets. According to Arla, the additive “can reduce emissions from cows by 27%” – which amounts to about a tonne of methane per cow per year.
According to dsm-firmenich, Bovaer has been subject to “100-plus on-farms trials in 20-plus countries and more than 70 peer-reviewed scientific studies”. It was licensed for use by the EU in early 2022, and by the USA’s FDA in May this year. And it works by suppressing the production of the enzymes in the cow’s digestive system that help to produce methane.
The internet’s many and able sceptics were quick to wonder out loud what the ingredients of this additive – silicon dioxide, propylene glycol, and 3-nitrooxypropanol – are, and what effects they have on cows, and potentially our own bodies. The later component, known as ‘3-NOP’, turns out to affect the development of male reproductive organs of rats in experiments using relatively high doses compared to the recommended usage.
This effect seems not to have troubled regulators, who have since authorised its use. So it must be assumed that they deem it safe. However, the word ‘safe’ in the context of interventions that are intended to serve the greater good has become much weaker in recent years, along side its sister term, ‘effective’. Effective it may well be. But many do not think the risk of this having effects on humans has been excluded.
I am the last to argue for organic farming. I often bang heads with farmers who, though are broadly critical of Net Zero, seem to have nonetheless drunk a lot more green Kool-Aid than is good for them. And I have argued against the broader green trend in favour of GM technology and in defence of agricultural chemicals – fertiliser, pesticides, and fungicides. I argue we should not be squeamish about either our use of animals or technologies, and resist claims that mischaracterise ‘nature’. But such arguments are not claims that there exist no risks – it is that technologies produce very clear and important benefits. By some estimates, for example, half the entire human population of the world is dependent on synthetic fertiliser (manufactured from methane) for sustenance.
What is the benefit achieved by preventing cow burps? Some claim that it will help save the planet. But that claim seems far-fetched when we consider the counter claims that the world does not need saving anyway, that methane’s mode of action in the atmosphere is not well understood and has been overstated, that the atmosphere may already be saturated by methane, and that the action of hooves on the surface of the planet may well aid in the sequestration of greenhouse gases. We might therefore want to consider whether banning the burps of bullocks is worth risking our bollocks. Do we even need safety data to dissuade us from this pointless intervention? Even if we trusted the agencies responsible for ensuring the safety of foods and food technologies, are there sufficient benefits to offset the possibility that they have made an error? No, because there are no benefits to this product. In other words, Bovaer meets political ‘needs’. It’s a food additive that ticks policy boxes.
In response to Arla Foods announcement, some are now challenging the supermarkets involved in this trial and advising a boycott. Others are contacting the dairies they use, to check that their milk or milk products have not come from a farm involved in this trial. And some farms have been keen to point out that they will not be using this additive. Some are calling for labelling, reigniting the tropes of the wars over GM food and throwing the green arguments back to the greens. And some are sharing the details of farms where it is possible to buy unprocessed milk, produced to the highest standards, with the minimum chemical and process interference.
I can’t say I blame them. And I think I will be suspending my scepticism of the ‘nature knows best’ crowd to join them in resisting this completely unnecessary chemical intervention, whether or not it is functionally equivalent to castration. It will be the greenest thing I have done in my enter career as a climate sceptic.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Speaking of bullox…
Cows are a small fraction of grazing animals on the Earth, vastly outnumbered by wild ones.
Leaving aside whether methane is/isn’t causing Climageddon, just like the tiny amount of CO2 being puffed out by the UK compared with the huge volumes from Chiba and India, the comparatively small fraction of cow emissions make no substantive contribution to the whole.
Stopping UK CO2 emissions and cow emissions will make not the slightest difference to so-called climate change/disruption/crisis/breakdown – whatever it is being called this week.
There are quite a number of mentally incompetent people in charge of things who really should be under psychiatric supervision and not allowed out.
And all the wild bovines around the world?
Not sure about wild bovine, but termites are major contributors to methane.
Don’t forget that methane reacts with oxygen in the atmosphere. The chemical reaction is very strongly exothermic – (produces heat energy). At quite low concentrations above about 4% the reaction on ignition is strongly explosive.
Obviously, methane concentrations, a few hundred parts per billion, are of little consequence but I am sceptical of the claim that a molecule of methane takes ten years to react with oxygen. Methane from swamps, rotting vegetation (and termites) likely exceeds cows’ contribution wildly and has done since forever.
For real. Anyone who thinks that the farting of cows changes the weather should be kept away from sharp objects.
Exactly. Just another pointless virtue-signal that is completely futile. A PR stunt that will displease as many as it appeases.
There must be a financial benefit for the supplier, even if it’s useless for the environment. Looks like a sales job for the firms mentioned in the article. After all, there is a lot of free advertising, in effect, from many politicians on this topic.
I’m sorry I can’t let that ‘wild grazing animals vastly outnumber cattle’ claim pass unchallenged (although it does depend to some extent on your definition of ‘grazing animals’). Wild mammals, which include some ruminants akin to cattle others that are nothing like cattle, make up only 4% of the world’s mammal biomass – the rest is us and domestic mammals. Even if you widen to ‘all terrestrial animals’, then livestock are still significant – albeit with a biomass only 50% that of all terrestrial arthropods combined. Terrestrial invertebrates like termites, though not exactly grazing animals, have quite an impact on decomposition processes and therefore the carbon cycle.
Methane in the atmosphere is measured in parts per billion (PPB). Its currently around 2,000 ppb, which is 2 ppm. CO2 is around 420 ppm, so there is around 210 times more CO2 than Methane, and the level of CO2 is insignificant (trace amounts) and inconsequential – unless you are a plant that photosynthesises.
There is more Argon in the atmosphere than CO2, almost 1% by volume, as opposed to 0.042% CO2, surprised the Eco zealots aren’t shitting themselves about that!
Methane is 0.0002% by volume.
All I need to know is does this dairy products Shyte have labels on it telling the customer it was fed on Bovaer?
If not, why not?
And now I know where not to buy dairy products from ,morrisons, tesco and Aldi!
As far as I am aware, the digestive system of ruminants has not altered recently. Cows which are ruminants, cannot digest grass without the huge population of protozoa residing in the rumen (the second stomach). The by-product of this process is methane amongst other things. To suppress methane production must surely involve an unnatural interference in this process and affect the cow’s ability to absorb nutrients.
We all know what happens when we interfere in natural processes (eg MRNA) Regulatory approval in now way means it’s safe.
Exactly right, that’s why you can’t feed a cow on corn or wheat based food supplements for very long (around 8 months I’ve heard but don’t quote me on that).
The cow would die because of the reasons you stated so they give them these fattening carbohydrates for as long as they dare to get the most meat on their bones as possible, a thin cow is not a profitable cow!
By nature cows eat grass
By man cows eat what we make them eat!
Just found this commonly mentioned practice:
“When feeding cows straight corn (high moisture, cracked, shell corn, or other varieties) you need to be very careful. Too much can cause harm to the animal leading to bloat, depletion of rumen microorganisms (tiny organisms that occur naturally in the bovine digestive tract to help break down and utilize feed stuffs).”
Feeding corn/cereals to farm animals must keep the corn price high and help get rid of any grain mountains/over production. The animals don’t need to eat it but the producers need it to be consumed one way or another: human, cattle, ethanol…
A lot of the corn talked about is corn on the cob. What the yanks call maize, I don’t think it’s the same stuff as cereals, but i stand to be corrected.
And BSE, remember that beauty, feedstuffs fed to animals from dead and ground animals, that worked out really well for those poor people who died in agony. How many food suppliers were sued for that?
I did read somewhere (not sure if true) that cows fed Bovaer need more mineral supplementation in their diet – considerably more
Correct. They seem to have already forgotten the lessons of “Mad Cow Disease” caused by feeding cows unnatural products.
As with any chemical manufacturer, one wonders how much their vast factories around the world are powered and what they are pumping out into the atmosphere to produce these climate saving chemicals
This is one way to make me give up dairy; contaminate it!
That’s the point of it. Nudge, nudge, nudge.
Save Our Cows Scrap Net Zero
Net – Zero Cows
There has been some discussion in recent times about regenerative agriculture, this has a lot to do with the very laudable aim of maintaining soil health and fertility However it is interesting to note that some of these regenerative farming techniques have been instrumental in enabling one Devon Dairy Farm to claim to be Carbon Neutral;
https://www.hownowdairy.co.uk/environment/
Depending on one’s view? you may not feel that a dairy farm going carbon neutral is entirely necessary, but nonetheless it is interesting to see that apparently it can be done. As the old Gardener’s Question Time guy, Bill Sowerbutts, used to say ‘the answer lies in the soil’.
“the answer lies in the soil.”
Guardian, 29/11/2032: “A new report has demonstrated catastrophic effects on human fertility and birth defects from the buildup of Bovaer and its breakdown products in the soil of farms, and in water supplies drawn from downstream. Lord Packham, speaking in a guest appearance on BBC’s Boilwatch, said it was a scandal for which farmers are squarely to blame, for not culling their animals in order to make money from right-wing vegophobes…”
Additives are screwing us up in both food and medicine. Don’t actively add any more chemicals and/or additives, and if you’re going to Regulate, do it to take proven crap out, and other additives that aren’t proven “safe” (sorry to use that word which seems to have lost its maning)
The problem is that Arla as well as being a manufacturer of products under its own brands also sells the raw milk products to other food manufacturers to use in all sorts of prepared foods, desserts, sauces etc. In fact anything which contains a dairy base could have an Arla product supplied into it.
I wonder has Arla obtained sufficient insurance, as should Tesco etc to be able to protect themselves from any damages to humans caused by the use of this product?
This is MRNA all over again wherby the bought and paid for regulatory bodies, pass things through based on political and monetry gain, and not for the welfare considerations of people who are currently alive on the planet.
Its not only the Supermarkets that need boycottng but we need labelling on any product which has used this additive to be notified on the label. Remember BSE folks and how that came about? well it looks like this could once again be another one of those.
I have contacted Arla via their website to say that I will not be purchasing any of their products, but have also requested the names of those food manufacturers they supply raw product too as I would not want to purchase from them either. Might I suggest other readers who dislike being subjected to experimentation in order to please Ed Milliband also get in touch with Arla
I have emailed Tesco and aldi to find out if they will be stocking any of this experimental ‘food’, ill let this post know if I get an answer
Something doesn’t seem to add up, when one looks at the labelling on current Arla products. They boast about the open field grazing by the cattle (“when the weather allows”), so are they going to use more non-local grass as part of the mix? Or will it only be done during the Winter?
I often buy their product in Morrisons, so we’ll see if they amend the labels in due course.
Interesting that dsm-firmenich had a background in the coal industry; of course, there is no mention of it on their site, following the link you issued!
To all climate alarmist’s and assorted brainwashed dreamers—–What difference will it make to global temperature* or to climate if the absurd Net Zero is knocked back to 2040 instead of 2030?——The answer is VIRTUALLY NONE—-We in tis country are squandering billions that we really can’t afford to be spending on hair brained schemes that do nothing for the people living in this country, virtually nothing for the climate, but what it does do is advance Global Governance since the climate change issue is being used to control wealth, resources and people. It is a pseudo-scientific Marxist FRAUD, so you can see why Marxists like Miliband are so full of zeal for it.
*—Global Temperature is simply a mathematical construct. What is used as regards the climate issue is Global Temperature Anomaly.
Is it just a coincidence that everything they foist upon us reduces fertility?
Bovaer® is a feed additive that reduces enteric methane emissions, contributing to a significant and immediate reduction of the environmental footprint of meat, milk, and dairy products. On average, it reduces emissions by 30% from dairy cows and 45% from beef cattle.
[Manufacturer’s website linked to in the article]
So, assuming that chemically f***ing with the digestive system of cattle is safe for both them and the people consuming dairy and beef from such cattle, based on this having been tried on less than 110 farms worldwide, ie, basically, not at all, between 55% – 70% of the methane emissions will remain.
As a thought experiment, assume that farting cows will cause climate collapse on January 1st next year, ie on the 33rd day from now. In the best case, Bovaer will thus postpone climate collapse by about 40 additional days (by that time, the amount of methane emissions with Bovaer will be identical to the emissions until January 1st without Bovaer).
Regardless of safety concerns, a good reason to avoid using this product would thus that the manufacturer already claims that it doesn’t work.
Herr schmeiß Hirn von Himmel …
(German saying, literally Lord almighty, please drop brains from the sky [as they’re seriously wanting down here]).
As a long-standing vegetarian combined with Climate Change / Net Zero / general environmentalism sceptic for several decades now this sort of nonsense makes my brain feel like exploding;
How’s about trying to arrange things and lead our lives in such a way which minimises suffering for all living and sentient creatures (whether human or animal) rather than a completely imaginary entity known as ‘The Planet’….
Because the two things are in complete contradiction.
While we’re on the subject, I try to buy milk products from Waitrose – all of which are claimed to be ‘Free Range’ – on the basis that this is presumably kinder and more natural to cows.
I’m sorry to say that it had not occurred to me that cows were anything but free range apart from keeping them in barns for some of the winter months. So now the thought is in my head, I am assuming that most milk comes from animals kept indoors all their lives. In what conditions?
Waitrose seems to be the only big supermarket that trumpets this aspect so its probably safe to assume that its unusual.
This “initiative” is just part of the nudge campaign … to get people to stop using milk/milk products and eating beef. And if it negatively affects male fertility, the Eco Zealots will consider that to be a benefit.
I shall continue buying milk, but not Arla’s products, and beef is most definitely on the menu.
While we’re on the subject, I try to buy milk products from Waitrose – all of which are claimed to be ‘Free Range’ – on the basis that this is presumably kinder and more natural to cows.
I’m sorry to say that it had not occurred to me that cows were anything but free range apart from keeping them in barns for some of the winter months. So now the thought is in my head, I am assuming that most milk comes from animals kept indoors all their lives. In what conditions?
Waitrose seems to be the only big supermarket that trumpets this aspect so its probably safe to assume that its unusual.
“Methane makes up 0.00017% (1.7 parts per million by volume) of the earth’s atmosphere”
seriously
?
No wonder Arla needs to cut these devastating levels of methane! Thank goodness they are going to save the world for us
(and they might make a bob or two in the process)
Another faux problem that keeps people in jobs “solving” it.
Orion Eco Solutions make a product which dissipates all methane / ammonia inside cattle housing.
There is a solution available, but nobody would have a job. Vested interests always hold sway.
Tim to start eating more venison. Although you may not get it in Tesco’s and their ilk you should find both farmed and wild at you local butcher.