Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
The biogenic carbon cycle (also called the biogenic methane cycle in the context of ruminant livestock) is a natural, relatively short- loop process that recycles carbon through living organisms, the atmosphere, and back again- primarily involving plants, ruminant animals (like cows, sheep, and goats), and soil. It contrasts sharply with the fossil carbon cycle, where burning ancient fuels adds “new” carbon that has been locked away for millions of years and accumulates in the atmosphere over centuries to millennia.
The phrase “A BRILLIANT take on cows, methane, and climate” directly refers to a widely shared perspective that challenges the mainstream narrative blaming cattle for significantly driving climate change via their methane (CH₄) burps.
This view centers on the biogenic carbon cycle:
Cows eat grass that has recently absorbed CO₂ from the atmosphere through photosynthesis.
They digest it, releasing methane as a byproduct of rumen fermentation.
That methane breaks down in the atmosphere over about 10–12 years into CO₂ and water.
If herd sizes remain stable (not growing), the CO₂ gets reabsorbed by new grass regrowth, creating a roughly closed loop with no net long-term addition of warming gases to the atmosphere- unlike fossil fuel CO₂, which adds ancient carbon that accumulates for centuries to millennia.
The biogenic carbon cycle (also called the biogenic methane cycle in the context of ruminant livestock) is a natural, relatively short- loop process that recycles carbon through living organisms, the atmosphere, and back again- primarily involving plants, ruminant animals (like cows, sheep, and goats), and soil. It contrasts sharply with the fossil carbon cycle, where burning ancient fuels adds “new” carbon that has been locked away for millions of years and accumulates in the atmosphere over centuries to millennia.
Every once in a while, the climate chaos noise gets condensed into something simple. Reduced to fact in the crucible of truth. This post on X was one of those moments:
Activist: "Every cow adds carbon to the atmosphere." Farmer: "Only if the total number of cows is increasing." Activist: "What?" Farmer: "Stable populations are carbon neutral. Methane breaks down in twelve years back to CO2. Same CO2 the grass absorbed last year." Activist: "But… pic.twitter.com/hIFigijFNQ
Greenhouse gas emissions by sector in the United States. Note that beef production is less than half of the entire livestock sector, at just 2 percent. Source: Data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Graphic by Anthony Watts. Artwork icons in graphic licensed from 123rf.com.
Sensational new scientific findings have blown holes in the climate hoax opinion that humans need to give up eating meat to save the planet. The effect of methane (CH4), a minor ‘greenhouse’ gas, have been grossly exaggerated to suggest that animal farming poses a significant threat to the global climate.
Sensational new scientific findings have blown holes in the climate hoax opinion that humans need to give up eating meat to save the planet. The effect of methane (CH4), a minor ‘greenhouse’ gas, have been grossly exaggerated to suggest that animal farming poses a significant threat to the global climate. But the invented threat relies on multiplying by around ten the length of time that CH4 stays in the atmosphere – an invention under Global Warming Potential 100 know as GWP100 that is in widespread use in activist circles, including the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. At current emission levels, five Italian scientists predict 54% less warming than under GWP100, while small decreasing emissions, possible with some changes in animal diets, produce only tiny amounts of claimed warming.
Load the vital protein-stuffed steaks on the barbie and celebrate the removal of another key plank in the climate hoax backing the ultimate luxury fantasy of Net Zero. You can go grubbing around the tropics for ‘superfood’ berries and grains, but meat is the core component of the evolved human diet. So much so that one fears the natural Darwinian process will in future start to reduce the numbers of weedy and increasingly feeble-minded individuals trying to get by on only ‘vegan’ sustenance.
Despite its obvious flaw, meat haters have persisted in using GWP100 to throw fuel on the climate crisis fire. But the fakery is exposed by the Italian scientists’ work, which accounts for methane’s short time in the atmosphere and shows large reductions in claimed warming at current levels, and even some cooling with relatively modest reductions.
Nevertheless, the Italian scientists break from the ‘consensus’ pack only up to a point, since they term all the greenhouses gases as climate ‘pollutants’ rather than trace atmospheric gases essential for all life on Earth. A rising methane emission pathway is presented showing little change from the proposed warming under GWP100, but the scenario depends on agricultural emissions rising an improbable three times faster than recent growth would suggest. Methane emissions may rise in future, but, if the need is felt, they can be controlled by a number of natural means. The cow produces protein rich natural food for humans by eating inedible grasses and vegetation that leads to enteric fermentation in its stomach. Reductions in the resulting gases between 10–30% have been achieved by non-chemical means such as rotating diet optimisation, selective breeding with animals with lower emissions and changes in husbandry techniques.
In essence, the new science paper shows that GWP100 gets it hopelessly wrong when it is used to promote the climate crisis hoax. Anti-meat eating has long been a fad of extreme environmentalism but, under cover of the command-and-control Net Zero project, it has been introduced into the mainstream. The new science findings suggest that wiping out methane emissions from livestock farming is unnecessary. If CH4 is your thing and you fear the addition of tiny amounts of cow burps and farts into the atmosphere, you need do little more than keep meat consumption at its current level. However, that might not be that relevant anyway since most methane emissions arise from a variety of sources and are subject to large natural variations.
In fact, there is considerable scientific observations and evidence that suggest the entire alarm over atmospheric trace gases is a giant con. Trace gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide only warm within narrow bands of the infrared spectrum. In addition, their effects are often mitigated by overlapping water vapour, a much more powerful greenhouse gas that is plentiful across the atmosphere. Observations and measurements suggest that the trace gases ‘saturate’ and produce only logarithmic diminishing warming returns. This simple, and many argue highly plausible, hypothesis has the immense advantage of explaining the climate past going back 600 million years. Over time, trace gases were often at much higher levels, producing comfortable conditions for abundant plant and animal life to thrive. Two well-known exponents of ‘saturation’ are Emeritus Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen. They are of the opinion that methane and nitrous oxide “are too small to have any significant effect on the environment”. Any warming effect is said to be negligible compared to natural variability.
Politicised Net Zero scares also surround nitrous oxide emissions, which are a by-product of applying artificial fertiliser to crops. No green activist, at least to your correspondent’s knowledge, has been able to reply to the suggestion that removing hydrocarbon-produced fertiliser will cut world crop supply by half, causing global starvation and the likely death in time of billions of people. What better way to keep a con job in play than to declare your position settled and refuse to talk about it to so-called deniers?
Much of the proffered data used to back up the absurdities of Net Zero is little more than fiddled guesses designed to promote a hard-Left agenda. Always there is the suspicion that many of the scares such as those around meat eating and fertiliser use arise from a political mindset that feels there are already too many people on the planet. Millions sacrificed to save the planet for a better and centrally controlled future is ‘Great Leap Forward’ thinking that has backed numerous failed socialist experiments in the past.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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 Pupoet 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.
The fifth farmer Kent Davidsen from Denmark, has now come forward and talks about sick and dead cows, due to the use of Bovaerpoison. He urges other farmers to stop using Bovaer and his vet agrees with him.
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.
Like a microcosm of the climate change debate, a group of investors thought they could make a profit while also saving animals, making people healthier, and changing the global climate all at the same time in a nifty 4 for 1. The UN recognised it as a Champion of the Earth for “science and innovation”. Bill Gates tossed money at it.
Beyond Meat may be beyond saving — it turned $4b into “a dumpster fire”
Like a microcosm of the climate change debate, a group of investors thought they could make a profit while also saving animals, making people healthier, and changing the global climate all at the same time in a nifty 4 for 1. The UN recognised it as a Champion of the Earth for “science and innovation”. Bill Gates tossed money at it.
But it turns out it was hard to recreate a steak without having a cow or 100 million years to evolve something competitive, economical and tasty. Cows are very efficient factories, in that they come with their own chemical plants, filters, thermostats, and barriers to stop infection, they can transport themselves and they make more cows too. So, the factory imitation was never going to be cheaper, at least not for years.
Like everything in the climate debate — everyone says they believe, but no one believes enough to spend $19.95 on fake burger meat. So, it was a wildly ambitious product, not-yet-invented, not-safety-tested, and without much appeal to 99% of the population.
What started as Silicon Valley’s next big thing is now an absolute dumpster fire.
After raising money from Bill Gates, going public for >$4 billion, and even partnering with Kim Kardashian, Beyond Meat is now the laughing stock of the NASDAQ.
The business has lost 96% of its equity value since IPO, is burning ~$20-$30 million in cash every quarter, and has over $1 billion in debt due in 2027.
As Jason Andrew points out it was doomed from the start. Since 2009 it has never had a single year in profit, and in 2019 at the peak, it was IPO’d at a glorious 40X revenue multiple, eclipsing even Facebook which launched at 28 X.
These ratios might have worked for a silicon chip company or a tech giant but was “ridiculous” for a food company competing on high costs and thin margins. As it happens, not only were customers not impressed with the climate control feature on the burgers, but they weren’t too sure it was really healthier than meat. These are ultraprocessed foods, may contain seed oils, or who knows what additives? So even the super health-conscious vegan climate activist might have had a dilemma.
It’s just another reminder of how a fantasy fashion swept the modern distracted world off its feet and burned up another $4 billion dollars.
It was all too easy when people could borrow up big on near 0% interest. It’s another bubble fed with a fiat currency.
There are very strong rumours Beyond Meat will have to file for bankruptcy, given that it has a billion dollars in debt. But the company seems to be trying to transition into a high protein health niche. They are even dropping the word “meat”. Perhaps it’s not a word that appeals to the core market of vegan eco-worriers?
Veteran Daily Mail correspondent Robert Hardman has written an illuminating piece about the effort to stop cows farting. Here’s how it begins:
Another week, another car crash in the world of marketing as, once again, a proudly progressive product launch smashes headlong into an awkward but immutable reality: you patronise the British public at your peril.
Last time, you may recall, it actually involved a real car-maker, as Jaguar rebranded itself with a new campaign featuring every colour and letter on the LGBTQ spectrum to show just how much it cares, while omitting to include any actual vehicles. Car fans have not stopped laughing (or crying) ever since.
This week’s self-inflicted disaster comes courtesy of several High Street supermarkets, a major European milk co-operative and a £23 billion Swiss-Dutch food and beauty corporation you have never heard of.
In just a matter of days, their “exciting” new eco-friendly cow snack has gone from a virtuous, planet-saving elixir for British agriculture to a pariah product painted as the new anthrax. Social media is buzzing with videos of people chucking “tainted” milk down the pan while rival milk producers have seen sales shoot up.
And after a 500-mile tour of U.K. farms this week, I have seen how the U.K.’s already beleaguered farming industry has been split down the middle over an innovation it never asked for – but may still have rammed down its throat by the Government.
It’s another case study for proponents of the adage: “go woke, go broke”. Still, one group are feeling very happy. It’s been a good week for vegans.
What a bold and brilliant vision it must have seemed when the consortium behind this latest wheeze gathered round the corporate conference table to brainstorm their new plan for the farmyard. With the blessing of the government, they would not only help slash UK carbon emissions but show a kinder, greener face – and all just by tinkering with the inner workings of the biggest methane generator in the British countryside: the dairy cow.
So, 11 days ago, Arla, the Danish-Swedish dairy co-operative which processes the milk from nearly a quarter of Britain’s 9,000 dairy farms and makes Lurpak butter, announced a new scheme as part of its snappily named “FarmAhead [sic] Customer Partnership initiative”.
It would be using a small number of its farms to roll out trials of Bovaer, a new additive for cow food made by Maastricht-based Dutch giant dsm-firmenich (a company so progressive that it has ditched capital letters).
When added to Daisy’s daily diet, Bovaer is said to cut bovine gas emissions from both ends by up to 30 per cent overall. Since UN boffins attribute up to 14 per cent of global carbon emissions to livestock, that equates to a significant saving – as Ed Miliband and his Department of Energy officials chase every carbon saving they can find.
It was launched with a video of happy farmers waxing evangelical about the Bovaer revolution.
‘We are extremely excited about this new collective way of working alongside our retail partners and the possibilities that feed additives, such as this one, present,’ declared Paul Dover from Arla, which supplies milk to Tesco, Aldi and Morrisons. At the same time, these three supermarket giants proudly issued a joint statement announcing: ‘It is this collective approach that is really going to make a difference.’
All could surely expect a few pats on the back. Yet the congratulatory champagne corks had barely popped at HQ when we saw the first inklings that the pesky public were not quite as ‘excited’ as they were supposed to be. Indeed, some were reaching for the pitchforks.
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.
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.
What happened: European bureaucrats in dreary Ireland are plotting the murder of roughly 200,000 cows in order to combat so-called climate change.
• Mass execution is one of the options being considered by the Irish government as it scrambles to satisfy the European Union’s draconian emissions targets by 2030.
Why it matters: Liberal activists have long sought to alleviate their personality disorders, sometimes referred to as “climate anxiety,” by killing innocent animals.
• Former president Barack Obama deployed solar farms, wind farms, and other “clean energy” murder machines to execute thousands of bald eagles on his watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.