Tag: Bovaer

Bovaer Bovine Stupidity

Late last year, Arla Foods began a trial of Bovaer in 30 farms across the country. At the time, according to BBC Very Iffy, the company claimed the additive could reduce methane emissions from cows by 30-45%. News of the trial caused consternation among some and led to a boycott of some Arla products. The manufacturer of Bovaer, DSM-Firmenich said these people were the subject of mistruths and misinformation and the product was “totally safe” for use.

An animated cartoon depiction of a cow lying on its back with its eyes closed, tongue sticking out, and green gas emissions around it, suggesting a humorous take on cow health and methane emissions.

From The Daily Sceptic

By David Turver

Late last year, Arla Foods began a trial of Bovaer in 30 farms across the country. At the time, according to BBC Very Iffy, the company claimed the additive could reduce methane emissions from cows by 30-45%. News of the trial caused consternation among some and led to a boycott of some Arla products. The manufacturer of Bovaer, DSM-Firmenich said these people were the subject of mistruths and misinformation and the product was “totally safe” for use.

Meanwhile, Bovaer was mandated to use across Denmark in early October this year and there have been many reports that the additive is damaging to livestock, prompting an investigation by the Danish government. By pure coincidence, Arla announced in early November it had stopped the British trial and was evaluating the results.

How did we get into this position of endemic bovine stupidity? Let’s dig in.

Net Zero Emissions

At root, this whole controversy is a story about Net Zero. The climate alarmists are concerned that methane concentrations in the atmosphere measured in parts per billion are having a devastating effect on the climate. This prompted organisations like UK FIRES to call for beef and lamb consumption to fall by 50% by 2030 and be eliminated altogether by 2050.

In its Seventh Carbon Budget the Climate Change Committee (CCC) was less draconian, calling for a 25% reduction in overall meat consumption by 2040 and 35% by 2050 compared to 2019 levels. Within this, it expects a steeper 40% reduction in red meat by 2050. CB7 also calls for a 27% reduction in the number of cattle and sheep by 2040 and a 38% reduction by 2050. It calls for these reductions even while noting that methane emissions “are already 62% lower than they were in 1990”.

Carbon Cycle

The alarmist narrative is driven by a misunderstanding of the carbon cycle. Cows and other ruminants have roamed the earth for thousands of years. For instance, there were about 60 million bison in North America in the 18th century, compared to about 87 million cattle in the US at the beginning of 2024. Somehow these bison did not manage to cause runaway global warming.

This is because of the cattle grazing carbon cycle (see Figure 1).

Illustration of the cattle-grazing carbon cycle, showing the processes of methane degradation, photosynthesis, animal emissions, soil and plant emissions, and carbon sequestration.
Figure 1. Cattle Grazing Methane Carbon Dioxide Cycle

Cows eat grass and methane released from cow belches and rotting manure is released into the atmosphere. The methane oxidises to CO2 quite quickly and then is reabsorbed by grass through photosynthesis. The grass grows and stores the carbon in its leaves and root systems. The cows then eat the grass and the cycle begins again.

Although methane is emitted during the cycle, it is then reabsorbed, so the net effect on the climate is negligible.

Impact of Methane in the Atmosphere

In addition, the concern about methane in the atmosphere is overblown (see Figure 2).

Diagram illustrating the interaction of solar radiation with the Earth's atmosphere, showing energy intensity, wavelength, and atmospheric absorption components including water vapor, carbon dioxide, oxygen, ozone, methane, and nitrogen oxides.
Figure 2. Methane Absorption Frequencies

As can be seen, the absorption frequencies of methane are almost entirely covered by the absorption frequencies of water vapour. The average concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is about 0.25%, or about 2,500 parts per million. By contrast, methane concentration is about 1,900 parts per billion, or more than three orders of magnitude lower than water vapour. The idea that a change in methane concentration will have an impact on climate when its absorption frequencies are already saturated by water vapour is absurd.

Bovaer Impact on Cows

Now we turn to the impact of Bovaer on livestock. Back in 2024, the Danish Centre for Food and Agriculture produced a paper setting out the impact of Bovaer on methane emissions and milk productivity.

The paper documented five experiments on Danish cow herds. The reporting of the results is not quite consistent, with some focusing just on methane reduction and others also including the impact on Energy Corrected Milk Yield (ECM) (see Figure 3).

Table summarizing the impact of Bovaer on methane emissions and Energy Corrected Milk Yield from various experiments.
Figure 3. Impact of Bovaer on Methane Emissions and Energy Corrected Milk Yield

Both Johnson experiments showed reductions in methane emissions of about a third, with corresponding reductions in ECM of a similar magnitude. The Kjeldsen experiment reduced methane emissions by nearly a quarter but was silent on the impact on milk yields. The first Maigaard paper showed an 18-23% reduction in methane emissions and simply recorded an unquantified negative impact on milk yields. The second Maigaard paper showed a reduction of between 31% and 34% in methane yield and zero to 5% reduction in ECM depending upon Bovaer dosage. It is noteworthy that none of the experiments got anywhere near the high-end 45% reduction in methane emissions claimed by DSM-Firmenich.

Another meta-study by Pupo et al. concluded that 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP), the active ingredient of Bovaer, reduced methane emissions by 27.9% but a dairy with 1,000 cows would need to be compensated by $128,320 per year to cover the cost of the additive and loss of milk yield.

We can only wonder at the bovine stupidity that would mandate the introduction of an additive that reduces milk yields almost as much as emissions. To get the same output, we would need more cows and have almost the same total emissions, but of course at much greater cost.

Bovaer Safety Data Sheet

The Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for Bovaer leads to additional concerns. It shows Bovaer causes serious eye damage, skin irritation and is suspected of damaging fertility. If the product gets in the eyes, users are recommended to immediately call a Poison Centre and rinse with water for several minutes.

This calls into question DSM-Firmenich’s claim that Bovaer is “totally safe” to use.

The Danish Experience

The Farmers Guardian has reported health issues in Danish cows being fed with Bovaer. The Danish Government made the feeding of Bovaer in herds of over 50 cows compulsory on October 1st 2025. On these farms, Bovaer must be added to the cow’s ration for at least 80 days a year. Farmers have said that their cows have suffered from issues including fever and diarrhoea, fertility performance has been impacted and in some instances farmers have reported cows have collapsed and died. Maybe the suspicion of fertility issues in the SDS can soon be confirmed as fact.

A farmer described Bovaer as a poison, noting an explosion in digital dermatitis and higher somatic cell counts. Higher somatic cell counts indicate lower milk quality and suggest udder infection. When he stopped adding Bovaer to their feed, cow health showed huge signs of improvement and somatic cell count fell by 20% two days later.

Danish farmer Kent Nielsen took to X with a video complaining that since started feeding his cows with Bovaer on October 1st his cows have suffered from diarrhoea, gut paralysis and milk fever. He also reported losing 3kg of milk per cow. He has since stopped administering Bovaer after consulting a vet.

Mr Neilsen’s profile on X also documents many instances of what he terms “Bovaerpoison” on other farms, including the death of calves.

Who could have guessed that messing with the digestive processes of cattle would impact their health?

Conclusions

The climate alarmists have made no secret of the fact they want to reduce meat consumption and cull our livestock herds. They have a mistaken belief that methane emissions from cows are damaging the climate, without considering full carbon cycle of ruminant herds.

The mad rush to Net Zero has caused an outbreak of bovine stupidity amongst our ruling classes. They have come up with Bovaer as a dangerous solution that cuts yields as well as emissions to a non-existent problem of cow flatulence. It is hardly surprising that tampering with the digestive processes of cows would harm their health. Some say that the purpose of a system is what it does, so maybe they see the imposition of Bovaer as an easy way to reduce the number of cows on farms. In effect, we must sacrifice the cows to appease the weather gods. We can only hope that Arla does the right thing and decides not to extend the Bovaer trial into the wider farming community.

David Turver writes the Eigen Values Substack page, where this article first appeared.

Danish Farmers Blame Bovaer for Collapsing Cows

More dairy cows are not thriving and give less milk. And in some cases, they collapse.

A black and white cow jumping in a green pasture with several other cows grazing in the background.

After a lack of well-being among cows with new feed, the national association demands clarification.

By Berfin Erdem

A herd of dairy cows grazing in a green field, with some cows visible in the foreground and others in the background.

More dairy cows are not thriving and give less milk. And in some cases, they collapse.

A controversial additive called Bovaer, which is to be mixed into cows’ feed, is suspected to be the cause of the problems. TV 2 has the story.

This is what several farmers say, writes Jyllands-Posten on Friday.

Since 1 October, farmers have started mixing the statutory additive in the cows’ feed.

The aim is to reduce cows’ emissions of the greenhouse gas methane, and Bovaer has previously been thoroughly tested for several years.

Still, something seems to have gone wrong in the rollout.

“We have so many people who call us and are unhappy about what is happening in their herds,” says Kjartan Poulsen, chairman of the National Association of Danish Dairy Producers, to TV 2.

The organization has now initiated an investigation into the case, he said.

Rated safe by the EU

The substance Bovaer is manufactured by the Dutch company DSM and was approved by the European Commission in 2022 for use in cattle feed.

The authorisation is based on studies by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which concluded that Bovaer does not pose a risk to the health of dairy cows or breeding cows, consumer safety or the environment.

In several cases, farmers have tried to remove the substance from the cows’ feed and have experienced that the animals recovered, writes Jyllands-Posten. When they later tried to reintroduce the drug, the problems have returned.

Kjartan Poulsen finds it “strange” and asks farmers to report when cows are not thriving under suspicion of Bovaer.

– We have to acknowledge that there are also some who feed with it without problems, so we have to find out what is really happening, the chairman adds.

Read the full story TV 2 here.

Tampering with Milk: The Backlash Against Bovaer and the Hubris of Climate Zealots

When global elites and bureaucrats decide they must “fix” the world, the results often speak for themselves. Take the latest technocratic debacle: Bovaer, a feed additive designed to reduce methane emissions from cows, marketed as a “climate-friendly” solution. It’s now being shelved by Norwegian dairy producer Q-Meieriene after consumers flatly rejected its so-called “climate milk.”

From Watts Up With That?

From Charles Rotter

When global elites and bureaucrats decide they must “fix” the world, the results often speak for themselves. Take the latest technocratic debacle: Bovaer, a feed additive designed to reduce methane emissions from cows, marketed as a “climate-friendly” solution. It’s now being shelved by Norwegian dairy producer Q-Meieriene after consumers flatly rejected its so-called “climate milk.”

This is more than a simple story of market rejection. It’s a cautionary tale of what happens when governments, corporations, and globalists push policies and products that tamper with the food supply to address a problem that may not even exist.

The Quest to Solve a “Crisis”

Bovaer, developed by DSM-Firmenich, has been touted as a game-changer in the fight against methane emissions—a major target of climate policies. The additive is said to suppress a key enzyme in the cow’s digestive process, reducing methane emissions by up to 30%. Regulatory bodies in over 68 countries, including the EU, Australia, and the U.S., have approved its use.

But let’s step back for a moment. Why are we targeting cow burps and farts in the first place? Methane is indeed a greenhouse gas, but it’s also a short-lived one that breaks down in the atmosphere within about a decade. Moreover, cows and bison have been emitting methane for millennia without triggering apocalyptic climate shifts. Yet suddenly, livestock emissions are treated as a planetary emergency demanding immediate action.

This myopic focus on cow methane is a prime example of how climate zealotry warps priorities. Rather than addressing real and immediate issues—like the energy crises their own policies create—governments and globalists have decided to micromanage how your milk is produced, all to reduce emissions by an imperceptible fraction of a percentage point.

Consumer Rebellion

The backlash against Bovaer has been swift and fierce. In Norway, Q-Meieriene began using the additive in 2023, branding the resulting product as “climate milk.” The response? Consumers overwhelmingly rejected it, leaving supermarket shelves stocked with unsold cartons while Bovaer-free milk flew off the shelves.

Facing dismal sales, Q-Meieriene recently announced it would discontinue the use of Bovaer, stating:

“Demand for Q climate milk has not been high enough to continue production…we phased out the use of methane suppressants in cow feed and are putting this project on pause.”

https://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/ville-redde-klimaet-med-prompe-fri-kumelk-snur/s/5-95-2166980

This is not merely a marketing failure. It reflects a broader consumer revolt against the technocratic imposition of “solutions” no one asked for. People are increasingly skeptical of being told that their daily choices—what they eat, how they travel, how they heat their homes—must be sacrificed on the altar of climate orthodoxy.

What Are They Hiding?

One of the most glaring issues with the Bovaer debacle is the lack of transparency. Supporters insist the additive is safe, with regulatory agencies claiming that Bovaer is metabolized in the cow’s stomach and doesn’t transfer into the milk or meat. But these assurances don’t address broader concerns.

What are the long-term effects of tampering with the natural digestive processes of livestock? Why is there such a rush to roll out untested solutions before these questions are answered?

This isn’t just about methane or milk. It’s part of a larger pattern of globalist overreach, where unproven technologies are foisted upon the public in the name of saving the planet. The uncertainties and potential unintended consequences are ignored, while dissenters are dismissed as ignorant or conspiratorial.

The Cost of Technocratic Zeal

The Bovaer case reveals the fundamental arrogance of climate policymakers. They presume to know what’s best for everyone, overriding centuries of agricultural tradition and the preferences of ordinary people in favor of top-down diktats.

But their schemes often fail to account for basic realities. Milk production, like most aspects of life, is a complex system with countless interdependencies. Intervening in such systems with narrow, technocratic fixes can easily do more harm than good.

Even if Bovaer’s methane-reducing claims are accurate (and that’s still up for debate), its actual impact on global temperatures would be so minuscule as to be undetectable. Meanwhile, the costs—economic, ecological, and societal—are potentially enormous.

This raises an uncomfortable but essential question: who benefits from all of this? It certainly isn’t the average consumer, who ends up paying higher prices for milk marketed with dubious claims. Instead, the beneficiaries seem to be the corporations and bureaucracies that profit from the endless churn of climate regulations, subsidies, and greenwashing schemes.

A Problem That Doesn’t Exist

At its core, the push for products like Bovaer rests on the assumption that we face a climate crisis of unprecedented scale. But this assumption is far from proven. Climate models—riddled with uncertainties—predict catastrophic warming that keeps failing to materialize in the real world. Methane’s role in this alleged crisis is even less certain.

Yet rather than acknowledge these unknowns, climate policymakers double down on their interventions. The result is a cascade of ill-conceived policies that disrupt lives, erode trust, and impose enormous costs without delivering measurable benefits.

The rejection of “climate milk” shows that ordinary people aren’t buying it—literally or figuratively. They’re tired of being treated as pawns in a game they never agreed to play.

Conclusion: The Limits of Control

Bovaer’s likely impending failure is a small but significant victory for consumer choice and common sense. It’s a reminder that no amount of regulatory approval or corporate greenwashing can override the will of the public.

More importantly, it exposes the futility of trying to engineer society around speculative climate fears. Whether it’s tampering with the food supply, banning gas stoves, or pushing unreliable renewables, these interventions inevitably backfire because they’re built on a flawed premise: that a few technocrats can redesign the world better than nature itself.

The next time globalists and bureaucrats come calling with their latest scheme to “save the planet,” we would do well to remember the lesson of Bovaer: the problem they claim to solve might not even exist, but the damage their solutions can cause is all too real.

Is Banning the Burps of Bullocks Worth Risking Our Bollocks?

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.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Ben Pile

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, alongside 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 greener 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.