When the Arla trial started, I wrote to Tesco, who delivered our weekly groceries and dairy shop, to ask for clarification of what dairy products might contain milk derived from milking herds fed with Bovaer supplement, as I wished to avoid those products.
Given that Tesco have very sophisticated tracking and tracing protocols that can trace a batch of milk back to a specific farm and collection date, I was disappointed with their response that this information was not available. Clearly, it was not available as they did not wish to provide the information!
All I got was this arrogant and dismissive response "I’d like to reassure you Bovaer poses no health risk to consumers or cows. It does not enter the milk or meat and does not affect milk quality or safety in any way."
To which my response was "Neither you nor your technical staff can substantiate such bold and far-reaching assurances. You do understand the potential liability you are creating for your employer by your claim that Bovaer poses no health risk? Lots of products come to market that were deemed safe, only for it to be later accepted that they were far from safe! "
Tesco, like so many other companies, have been utterly captured by the Net Zero Zealots that they don't listen to consumer concerns. And all I wanted was to know what products I needed to avoid!
While we don't purchase meat from a supermarket, Tesco claim they sell Halal to be inclusive!
This appears only to pander to one vocal minority and makes no allowance for those of us who would prefer not to have any ritual slaughter in our abattoirs.
When I first heard about this stupidity, I am immediately found out the milk I was using was supplied by Arla and as a consumer used my power to ensure I did not buy any product as far as I was informed that was part of this madness. I continue to appraise the dairy products I buy on a regular basis. Hope this is helpful.
Although I agree that Bovaer is not the solution to anything. Your analysis here is rather simplified.
Usually, you calculate net effects, in the case of the carbon cycle this is more difficult than by looking at balance sheets. But still, you do not account for synthetic fertilizers, or the fact that many cows are not purely grass fed, there are probably other unaccounted for effects as well.
Also, what do you mean by “saturated” in the following sentence: “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.” If you mean that methane cannot absorb solar radiation because water vapor also absorbs some of the same wavelengths, you are simply mistaken.
If all those cow farts were trapping ever more heat by preventing outgoing long wave radiation from escaping from the atmosphere, how come CERES data shows that outgoing long wave radiation flux has been INCREASING for the last 25 years and in particular has increased sharply, very recently, along with a remarkable spike in absorbed short wave solar radiation, especially noticeable over the north Pacific?
To me this seems to align with a warming Earth, no? If the Earth is warming, there is more long wave radiation that could escape, so it is not because methane and other GHG are not trapping radiation, its that there is more to be trapped.
The planet is warming because more short wave solar radiation is penetrating to the surface, particularly the oceans. Naturally, this means that more long wave radiation will be generated at the surface, which will make its way back into space. If, theoretically, some of that long wave radiation which would have made it back into space is being re-emitted back to the surface because of GHGs, the effect is being completely swamped by the first order forcing of climate, which is the reduction in planetary albedo. Almost all of the warming post 2000 plus the sudden warming beginning June 2023, can be attributed to this first order forcing. GHG warming, assuming it is happening, is an order of magnitude or two less than the direct solar heating of the oceans. Climate scientists know this, hence they are now trying to claim (without evidence) that decreasing albedo is a feedback of GHG warming (absurd) or that anthropogenic aerosol reductions have driven the decrease in tropical and midlatitude marine cloud cover. The far more likely explanation is that natural variability is responsible.
The original claim was that “the addition of a bit … makes no difference”. My analogy is directed at this.
Regarding your point, I do not understand how this agrees with your sentiment. Co2 is itself a GHG and stays in the atmosphere for at least another 100 years? And your claim of balance seems to imply that methane concentration in the atmosphere is not increasing.
My understanding is also that saturation can only happen at lower altitudes were water vapor exist.
They seemingly do not account for indirect effects and feedbacks. I also struggle to understand, given their assumptions, how they reached the claim of a “temperature increase of about 0.011” degrees Celsius per year.
"Saturation" means IR overlap, not solar: No one claims methane can't absorb solar radiation due to water vapor—its key bands (e.g., 3.3 μm, 7.7 μm) are in the IR for Earth's outgoing longwave radiation (OLR), where water vapor's broad continuum heavily overlaps and saturates them (optical depth τ >1 even at low humidity). Extra methane adds marginal forcing (~0.02 W/m² per ppb, logarithmic like CO₂), but its total <0.5 W/m² is dwarfed by water vapour's ~150 W/m² GHE. Spectral plots (HITRAN database) confirm methane lines are "filled" by H₂O, minimising climate impact—your solar misinterpretation is the actual mistake.
Sure, my wording is wrong or imprecise depending on your goodwill, but most of IR stems from the sun. Can you direct med to a study for your claims regarding forcing?
If you are more precise as to what you don't understand, I will then be able to provide the detail you are seeking.
However, if you approach the subject with a degree of scepticism and natural curiosity and discard any received ideological belief, all the information you need is out there.
But, it is a waste of your time and mine, as I doubt we will ever agree.
To be clear, on a fundamental level, I think cooling is more dangerous than warming. I think higher concentrations of Co² are a positive and not a negative, and I am unpersuaded by the argument that Co² is the sole or main driver of "climate change" [whatever that actually means!].
I really don't have the time today to indulge you, but here is something I posted on a Climate Alarmist substack. It gives you some science and cements what my position is while trying to remain courteous.
==========
"Why CO₂ Is Unlikely to Be the Sole or Main Cause of Global Warming
Climate models, such as those used in IPCC assessments, employ a simplified energy balance that treats Earth’s incoming solar radiation (1366 W/m² at the top of the atmosphere) as uniformly spread over its spherical surface, yielding an average insolation of ~342 W/m² after dividing by 4, and ~240 W/m² after applying albedo (30%). This equates to modelling Earth as a flat disk at twice its actual orbital distance from the Sun (~300 million km instead of 150 million km), reducing solar flux by a factor of 4 via the inverse square law. This underestimates direct solar heating, which delivers up to ~1000 W/m² at the equator at noon. Without greenhouse gases, this model predicts a frozen -18°C (255 K) surface, but accounting for spherical geometry, rotation, and heat redistribution via convection, conduction, and ocean currents suggests a baseline of +18°C to +33°C (291-306 K) under clear skies. The claimed +33°C “greenhouse warming” (to the observed +15°C average) is thus largely an artifact of this unphysical model, not primarily CO₂-driven.
CO₂ absorbs infrared (IR) radiation at specific wavelengths (15 μm central band, ~10 μm weaker wings) due to its dipole moment, enabling heat-trapping vibrational modes. At current levels (420 ppm), the central band is near-saturated, with additional CO₂ yielding logarithmic returns: the first 20 ppm contributes 50% of CO₂’s effect, and doubling to 840 ppm adds only ~1-3 W/m² of radiative forcing (out of ~150 W/m² total greenhouse effect). Water vapour, with a broader IR absorption spectrum and higher abundance (1-4% of atmosphere vs. CO₂’s 0.042%), dominates (60-80% of greenhouse effect) and overlaps CO₂’s bands. As a feedback, water vapour amplifies warming (e.g., CO₂-induced warming increases evaporation), but its short residence time (days) versus CO₂’s (centuries) means it responds to external forcings like solar input or orbital changes, not drives them.
Historical data challenges CO₂ as the primary driver. Paleo-records show periods with CO₂ levels of 3,000-9,000 ppm (e.g., Ordovician, 500 Ma) had glaciations due to a fainter Sun (4% dimmer) and continental configurations, while lower-CO₂ eras (e.g., mid-Pliocene, ~400 ppm, 3 Ma) were 2.5-4°C warmer due to ocean currents. Ice core data (e.g., Vostok) indicate CO₂ often lags temperature by centuries, acting as a feedback (warming oceans release CO₂) rather than a driver. For instance, the Last Ice Age Maximum (190 ppm CO₂) was 4-6°C cooler, driven by Milankovitch cycles. Even today’s rapid CO₂ rise (~100x natural rates) contributes ~80% of anthropogenic forcing since 1990, but natural forcings (solar cycles, volcanism) explain significant variability.
Climate model limitations further weaken CO₂-centric claims. General circulation models (GCMs) overpredict warming (e.g., CMIP6 models show 0.5°C excess by 2020) and assume a fixed ~240 W/m² solar input, underestimating solar cycle variations (1-2 W/m², off by 20-30%). Repeatable experiments, such as IR spectroscopy and radiosonde measurements, show convection and conduction dominate surface heat transfer (~70-90%), not CO₂-modulated radiation. Predicted tropospheric “hot spots” are absent in observations. CO₂’s effect is measurable but not dominant; it acts as a proxy for processes like volcanism or biosphere activity. Oversimplifying to CO₂ ignores water vapour’s dominance, natural forcings, and the unphysical “flat disk” model, suggesting warming is a complex interplay where CO₂ is a contributor, not the sole or main cause."
When I looked at this in the summer there were several points that seemed to jump out. Firstly its a chemical with a nitrate group, how many time have we been told nitrates in the water is a bad thing yet here we are feeding nitrates to cows. Secondly the active chemical is a hydrolysis product of the additive which was around in the 1970's but cannot be patented now. However the chemical now used is chemical is under patent so it makes more money, strange that. Thirdly the tests on cows to determine the safety level seems to be very short duration a few months and the safe levels were adjusted so that the cows did not appear clinically sick ( again a test lasting a few months, 2 or 3 from memory). I was left with the impression of a money grabbing scheme with laughable testing for welfare of the cows and no testing on milk quality.
I don’t think this is any “mistaken belief” on the part of climate alarmists. The war on farming is all part of the deep state’s war on humanity. The sabotage was particularly noticeable in the USA during the Biden years with farmers being denied fertiliser supplies and alt media reports (not the complicit MSM) of food processing plants and chicken farms being mysteriously burned down. Here in the UK the price of agricultural fertiliser is now about three times more expensive than it was a few years ago. No wonder our grocery bills are going up.
Engineered energy shortages, food shortages, water shortages. The very basics of life rationed, not because of any inherent scarcity but because of deliberate policies.
Perhaps in the 'fullness of time' Bovaer will be regarded as one of those 'errors of judgement' the powers that be are always making at our expense. Yes...to term them 'mistaken beliefs' is to let 'them' off the hook of accountability. ( eg, ref to the Hallett Inq...Whitty opining it was probably a "mistake" to have people 'locked down' for so long. A mistake sans consequences for him). But, back to the cows....the futility, the theatre...as if cows 'methane emissions' sit in concentrated form. They'll be dispersed around the globe by zonal winds, which should be the fate of the those introducing insane policies, but preferably beyond the stratosphere.
The climate alarmism agenda is sheer insanity if it is to be accepted at face value. which is why censorship is being pushed it. Net Zero Ofcommunism does not stand the lowest degree of scrutiny and therefore scrutiny needs to be illegal.
Call me old-fashioned, but I have always believed the food we choose to eat should be based on nutrition, rather than the weather. The push to reduce meat consumption never mentions the fact that meat is the most nutrient dense and easily absorbed food humans can eat. Persuading everyone to eat less meat will make no difference to the climate, but it will put thousands of small farmers out of business and damage everyone’s health. The farmers’ land will be bought cheaply by large corporations who will exploit it for profit, instead of looking after it for future generations. The Climate Scam has many facets; ‘cow burps’ is just one of the most absurd.
I have thought for sometime that the climate zealots are the latest incarnation of the medieval heretics such as the flaggelents and the Cathars, all of whom opposed sex and contraception, vegetarianism and constant repentance in the face of Divine anger.
These people who a century ago would have been the fanatics preaching the imminence of God's anger (the end is nigh and all that) are now preaching that our wicked ways are destroying the world.
I agree with a lot of what you have to say on subsidies for renewables, but the level of radiation to space that needs to balance is in the upper atmosphere where the water vapor level is very low and methane is well mixed.
At this level methane absorption does have an effect.
The idea that methane matters because water vapour is low in the upper troposphere is a common misunderstanding. Even up there, water vapour’s absorption bands heavily overlap methane’s, and the key IR windows are already saturated. Methane’s optical depth is tiny (~0.05–0.1) and its total radiative forcing is under 0.5 W/m²—dwarfed by natural variability and convection, which moves most heat to the emission altitude anyway. The atmosphere balances energy primarily by moving air upward (latent + sensible heat), not by trace-gas radiative tweaks at the top
When I read the report you link to, I think the "Energy Corrected Milk Yield" is not actually the amount of milk the cow produces, but the amount of Methane the cow produces per Kg of milk.
The actual drop in milk yield is around 1Kg per day, against a normal "output" from a cow of perhaps 30Kg. So 3%.
So, unfortunately, it's not as damning as your article suggests. Like most people reading this I am deeply suspicious of Bovaer and would much rather it wasn't used - the health implications alone are wide and it saddens me that people/companies think the digestive process is so simple they can just turn parts of it off. Of course there will be side effects, but these are always secondary to the profits which can be made by grabbing the coat-tails of the climate cult.
But, it's still important to get facts right because if we're going to win these arguments we can't afford to have people say "haha - you're wrong".
Energy Corrected Milk Yield is a measure of the fat and protein content of milk.
I have re-read the paper again now and still think it's ambiguous. However, even a small reduction in yield still required more cows to produce the same output.
Hi David - thanks for the reply and for continuing to produce these excellent articles. I do agree it's very ambiguous, they sometimes use "Yield" to refer to the amount of milk produced (which would be my default interpretation of the word) and to sometimes to refer to the amount of CH4 produced, which is just sloppy writing IMHO. And they do call out the fact that the government has to compensate farmers for the reduced milk yield, which means it's significant.
Good to know that you can avoid this stuff in the UK by buying organic, although not everyone wants to pay the difference. Hopefully this setback in Denmark will make UK supermarkets rethink things.
This isn't about cows - that's just the excuse. It's about control, about forcing rationing of meat. I have no idea why these stupid policies are being forced on us. Everything is about forcing down consumption - food, fuel, energy, water.
The Danes need more sunlight. Any ‘additive’ to make a cow not behave like a cow is a very deranged and very sick person. These greenies won’t eat gmo corn but try to change the basic function of a cows digestive process. Reducing meat consumption is just anti-human; but consistent with their handlers in the WEF.
These people will wither in the cold if they don’t wake up!
Whatever people think about methane, the Bovaer story should worry anyone who cares about animal welfare, food quality and basic common sense. Mandating an additive that appears to cut milk yields almost as much as emissions, comes with its own safety warnings and is now being linked to health problems in Danish herds looks far more like policy theatre than serious climate action.
What frustrates me most is how little respect there is for the ruminant carbon cycle and for the farmers who actually know their cows and land. Instead of investing in better grazing, diverse pastures and genuinely regenerative systems, we are throwing money at a product that seems to make cows sicker and farmers more dependent.
Whatever the “solution” is, it cannot be poisoning the animals we rely on and calling it progress.
I was maybe too mild when I published my own piece on 3-NOP half a year ago. I merely advocated for thorough trials, since there obviously is no urgency to roll it it out. Meanwhile, we know that cattle have lower milk yields, get sick and even collapse when consuming 3-NOP, which has led to a halt of the trials in Scandinavia. Based on these findings, we need to make dosing of 3-NOP into cattle feed illegal. Also, this should be the single last time a new chemical or pharmaceutical is rolled out on a widespread basis without proper longitudinal testing, be it in cattle or humans.
When the Arla trial started, I wrote to Tesco, who delivered our weekly groceries and dairy shop, to ask for clarification of what dairy products might contain milk derived from milking herds fed with Bovaer supplement, as I wished to avoid those products.
Given that Tesco have very sophisticated tracking and tracing protocols that can trace a batch of milk back to a specific farm and collection date, I was disappointed with their response that this information was not available. Clearly, it was not available as they did not wish to provide the information!
All I got was this arrogant and dismissive response "I’d like to reassure you Bovaer poses no health risk to consumers or cows. It does not enter the milk or meat and does not affect milk quality or safety in any way."
To which my response was "Neither you nor your technical staff can substantiate such bold and far-reaching assurances. You do understand the potential liability you are creating for your employer by your claim that Bovaer poses no health risk? Lots of products come to market that were deemed safe, only for it to be later accepted that they were far from safe! "
Tesco, like so many other companies, have been utterly captured by the Net Zero Zealots that they don't listen to consumer concerns. And all I wanted was to know what products I needed to avoid!
We no longer shop at Tesco.
And their Halal policy, which is incoherent.
While we don't purchase meat from a supermarket, Tesco claim they sell Halal to be inclusive!
This appears only to pander to one vocal minority and makes no allowance for those of us who would prefer not to have any ritual slaughter in our abattoirs.
I sent a similar letter and received the same answer. I used to have a weekly Tesco delivery, no longer.
Bovaer free dairy suppliers. https://ukreloaded.com/bovaer-free-dairy-suppliers/
When I first heard about this stupidity, I am immediately found out the milk I was using was supplied by Arla and as a consumer used my power to ensure I did not buy any product as far as I was informed that was part of this madness. I continue to appraise the dairy products I buy on a regular basis. Hope this is helpful.
thanks
Although I agree that Bovaer is not the solution to anything. Your analysis here is rather simplified.
Usually, you calculate net effects, in the case of the carbon cycle this is more difficult than by looking at balance sheets. But still, you do not account for synthetic fertilizers, or the fact that many cows are not purely grass fed, there are probably other unaccounted for effects as well.
Also, what do you mean by “saturated” in the following sentence: “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.” If you mean that methane cannot absorb solar radiation because water vapor also absorbs some of the same wavelengths, you are simply mistaken.
The point is that with water vapour at 1,000 times the concentration, the addition of a bit of methane makes no difference.
Makes no difference to what? Methane has a stronger per molecule heat trapping capacity, it also lives longer in the atmosphere than water vapor.
There is a point where a company goes from solvent to insolvent, it is not such that a little bit of extra debt never makes any difference.
If all those cow farts were trapping ever more heat by preventing outgoing long wave radiation from escaping from the atmosphere, how come CERES data shows that outgoing long wave radiation flux has been INCREASING for the last 25 years and in particular has increased sharply, very recently, along with a remarkable spike in absorbed short wave solar radiation, especially noticeable over the north Pacific?
https://x.com/LeonSimons8/status/1992263005372076360
To me this seems to align with a warming Earth, no? If the Earth is warming, there is more long wave radiation that could escape, so it is not because methane and other GHG are not trapping radiation, its that there is more to be trapped.
The planet is warming because more short wave solar radiation is penetrating to the surface, particularly the oceans. Naturally, this means that more long wave radiation will be generated at the surface, which will make its way back into space. If, theoretically, some of that long wave radiation which would have made it back into space is being re-emitted back to the surface because of GHGs, the effect is being completely swamped by the first order forcing of climate, which is the reduction in planetary albedo. Almost all of the warming post 2000 plus the sudden warming beginning June 2023, can be attributed to this first order forcing. GHG warming, assuming it is happening, is an order of magnitude or two less than the direct solar heating of the oceans. Climate scientists know this, hence they are now trying to claim (without evidence) that decreasing albedo is a feedback of GHG warming (absurd) or that anthropogenic aerosol reductions have driven the decrease in tropical and midlatitude marine cloud cover. The far more likely explanation is that natural variability is responsible.
Methane isn’t “extra debt” — it’s a 12-year revolving credit line in a budget that’s already balanced.
Unlike real debt, methane’s “interest” is paid automatically by oxidation back to CO₂ — no bankruptcy, just a closed loop.
The analogy only works if you ignore saturation and natural cycles.
The original claim was that “the addition of a bit … makes no difference”. My analogy is directed at this.
Regarding your point, I do not understand how this agrees with your sentiment. Co2 is itself a GHG and stays in the atmosphere for at least another 100 years? And your claim of balance seems to imply that methane concentration in the atmosphere is not increasing.
My understanding is also that saturation can only happen at lower altitudes were water vapor exist.
You totally misunderstood the entire process. Well done.
Here's the proper physics for atmospheric methane
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Methane-and-Climate-Happer-van-Wijngaarden-2025-January-compressed.pdf
They seemingly do not account for indirect effects and feedbacks. I also struggle to understand, given their assumptions, how they reached the claim of a “temperature increase of about 0.011” degrees Celsius per year.
Thanks for this. I didn't come across this in my research for the article. Will include an update later.
"Saturation" means IR overlap, not solar: No one claims methane can't absorb solar radiation due to water vapor—its key bands (e.g., 3.3 μm, 7.7 μm) are in the IR for Earth's outgoing longwave radiation (OLR), where water vapor's broad continuum heavily overlaps and saturates them (optical depth τ >1 even at low humidity). Extra methane adds marginal forcing (~0.02 W/m² per ppb, logarithmic like CO₂), but its total <0.5 W/m² is dwarfed by water vapour's ~150 W/m² GHE. Spectral plots (HITRAN database) confirm methane lines are "filled" by H₂O, minimising climate impact—your solar misinterpretation is the actual mistake.
Sure, my wording is wrong or imprecise depending on your goodwill, but most of IR stems from the sun. Can you direct med to a study for your claims regarding forcing?
If you are more precise as to what you don't understand, I will then be able to provide the detail you are seeking.
However, if you approach the subject with a degree of scepticism and natural curiosity and discard any received ideological belief, all the information you need is out there.
But, it is a waste of your time and mine, as I doubt we will ever agree.
To be clear, on a fundamental level, I think cooling is more dangerous than warming. I think higher concentrations of Co² are a positive and not a negative, and I am unpersuaded by the argument that Co² is the sole or main driver of "climate change" [whatever that actually means!].
I really don't have the time today to indulge you, but here is something I posted on a Climate Alarmist substack. It gives you some science and cements what my position is while trying to remain courteous.
==========
"Why CO₂ Is Unlikely to Be the Sole or Main Cause of Global Warming
Climate models, such as those used in IPCC assessments, employ a simplified energy balance that treats Earth’s incoming solar radiation (1366 W/m² at the top of the atmosphere) as uniformly spread over its spherical surface, yielding an average insolation of ~342 W/m² after dividing by 4, and ~240 W/m² after applying albedo (30%). This equates to modelling Earth as a flat disk at twice its actual orbital distance from the Sun (~300 million km instead of 150 million km), reducing solar flux by a factor of 4 via the inverse square law. This underestimates direct solar heating, which delivers up to ~1000 W/m² at the equator at noon. Without greenhouse gases, this model predicts a frozen -18°C (255 K) surface, but accounting for spherical geometry, rotation, and heat redistribution via convection, conduction, and ocean currents suggests a baseline of +18°C to +33°C (291-306 K) under clear skies. The claimed +33°C “greenhouse warming” (to the observed +15°C average) is thus largely an artifact of this unphysical model, not primarily CO₂-driven.
CO₂ absorbs infrared (IR) radiation at specific wavelengths (15 μm central band, ~10 μm weaker wings) due to its dipole moment, enabling heat-trapping vibrational modes. At current levels (420 ppm), the central band is near-saturated, with additional CO₂ yielding logarithmic returns: the first 20 ppm contributes 50% of CO₂’s effect, and doubling to 840 ppm adds only ~1-3 W/m² of radiative forcing (out of ~150 W/m² total greenhouse effect). Water vapour, with a broader IR absorption spectrum and higher abundance (1-4% of atmosphere vs. CO₂’s 0.042%), dominates (60-80% of greenhouse effect) and overlaps CO₂’s bands. As a feedback, water vapour amplifies warming (e.g., CO₂-induced warming increases evaporation), but its short residence time (days) versus CO₂’s (centuries) means it responds to external forcings like solar input or orbital changes, not drives them.
Historical data challenges CO₂ as the primary driver. Paleo-records show periods with CO₂ levels of 3,000-9,000 ppm (e.g., Ordovician, 500 Ma) had glaciations due to a fainter Sun (4% dimmer) and continental configurations, while lower-CO₂ eras (e.g., mid-Pliocene, ~400 ppm, 3 Ma) were 2.5-4°C warmer due to ocean currents. Ice core data (e.g., Vostok) indicate CO₂ often lags temperature by centuries, acting as a feedback (warming oceans release CO₂) rather than a driver. For instance, the Last Ice Age Maximum (190 ppm CO₂) was 4-6°C cooler, driven by Milankovitch cycles. Even today’s rapid CO₂ rise (~100x natural rates) contributes ~80% of anthropogenic forcing since 1990, but natural forcings (solar cycles, volcanism) explain significant variability.
Climate model limitations further weaken CO₂-centric claims. General circulation models (GCMs) overpredict warming (e.g., CMIP6 models show 0.5°C excess by 2020) and assume a fixed ~240 W/m² solar input, underestimating solar cycle variations (1-2 W/m², off by 20-30%). Repeatable experiments, such as IR spectroscopy and radiosonde measurements, show convection and conduction dominate surface heat transfer (~70-90%), not CO₂-modulated radiation. Predicted tropospheric “hot spots” are absent in observations. CO₂’s effect is measurable but not dominant; it acts as a proxy for processes like volcanism or biosphere activity. Oversimplifying to CO₂ ignores water vapour’s dominance, natural forcings, and the unphysical “flat disk” model, suggesting warming is a complex interplay where CO₂ is a contributor, not the sole or main cause."
When I looked at this in the summer there were several points that seemed to jump out. Firstly its a chemical with a nitrate group, how many time have we been told nitrates in the water is a bad thing yet here we are feeding nitrates to cows. Secondly the active chemical is a hydrolysis product of the additive which was around in the 1970's but cannot be patented now. However the chemical now used is chemical is under patent so it makes more money, strange that. Thirdly the tests on cows to determine the safety level seems to be very short duration a few months and the safe levels were adjusted so that the cows did not appear clinically sick ( again a test lasting a few months, 2 or 3 from memory). I was left with the impression of a money grabbing scheme with laughable testing for welfare of the cows and no testing on milk quality.
No studies that I am aware of into potential human health risk or long term environmental nitrate damage.
Trial ends - full use begins.
I don’t think this is any “mistaken belief” on the part of climate alarmists. The war on farming is all part of the deep state’s war on humanity. The sabotage was particularly noticeable in the USA during the Biden years with farmers being denied fertiliser supplies and alt media reports (not the complicit MSM) of food processing plants and chicken farms being mysteriously burned down. Here in the UK the price of agricultural fertiliser is now about three times more expensive than it was a few years ago. No wonder our grocery bills are going up.
Don’t forget that the previous Dutch government led by establishment puppet Rutte tried to throw 3,000 farmers off their land: https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1677598760770076672?s=20.
Engineered energy shortages, food shortages, water shortages. The very basics of life rationed, not because of any inherent scarcity but because of deliberate policies.
Absolute Zero. Society held prisoner on the cusp of starvation.
Further to the war on humanity, my response to the Scottish Government’s updated Net Zero plan is available here: https://metatron.substack.com/p/dissecting-scotlands-economy-wrecking.
Perhaps in the 'fullness of time' Bovaer will be regarded as one of those 'errors of judgement' the powers that be are always making at our expense. Yes...to term them 'mistaken beliefs' is to let 'them' off the hook of accountability. ( eg, ref to the Hallett Inq...Whitty opining it was probably a "mistake" to have people 'locked down' for so long. A mistake sans consequences for him). But, back to the cows....the futility, the theatre...as if cows 'methane emissions' sit in concentrated form. They'll be dispersed around the globe by zonal winds, which should be the fate of the those introducing insane policies, but preferably beyond the stratosphere.
COP30 delegates fantasise about “climate change” causing massive famines while trying to force us back into pre-industrial living conditions by pushing against the use of essential fossil fuels and hydrocarbon-based fertilisers: https://dailysceptic.org/2025/11/24/fake-famine-fears-at-the-collapsed-cop30-fuels-net-zero-fantasy/.
The climate alarmism agenda is sheer insanity if it is to be accepted at face value. which is why censorship is being pushed it. Net Zero Ofcommunism does not stand the lowest degree of scrutiny and therefore scrutiny needs to be illegal.
Call me old-fashioned, but I have always believed the food we choose to eat should be based on nutrition, rather than the weather. The push to reduce meat consumption never mentions the fact that meat is the most nutrient dense and easily absorbed food humans can eat. Persuading everyone to eat less meat will make no difference to the climate, but it will put thousands of small farmers out of business and damage everyone’s health. The farmers’ land will be bought cheaply by large corporations who will exploit it for profit, instead of looking after it for future generations. The Climate Scam has many facets; ‘cow burps’ is just one of the most absurd.
I have thought for sometime that the climate zealots are the latest incarnation of the medieval heretics such as the flaggelents and the Cathars, all of whom opposed sex and contraception, vegetarianism and constant repentance in the face of Divine anger.
These people who a century ago would have been the fanatics preaching the imminence of God's anger (the end is nigh and all that) are now preaching that our wicked ways are destroying the world.
(Typo: not contraception but conception itself).
I agree with a lot of what you have to say on subsidies for renewables, but the level of radiation to space that needs to balance is in the upper atmosphere where the water vapor level is very low and methane is well mixed.
At this level methane absorption does have an effect.
The idea that methane matters because water vapour is low in the upper troposphere is a common misunderstanding. Even up there, water vapour’s absorption bands heavily overlap methane’s, and the key IR windows are already saturated. Methane’s optical depth is tiny (~0.05–0.1) and its total radiative forcing is under 0.5 W/m²—dwarfed by natural variability and convection, which moves most heat to the emission altitude anyway. The atmosphere balances energy primarily by moving air upward (latent + sensible heat), not by trace-gas radiative tweaks at the top
When I read the report you link to, I think the "Energy Corrected Milk Yield" is not actually the amount of milk the cow produces, but the amount of Methane the cow produces per Kg of milk.
The actual drop in milk yield is around 1Kg per day, against a normal "output" from a cow of perhaps 30Kg. So 3%.
So, unfortunately, it's not as damning as your article suggests. Like most people reading this I am deeply suspicious of Bovaer and would much rather it wasn't used - the health implications alone are wide and it saddens me that people/companies think the digestive process is so simple they can just turn parts of it off. Of course there will be side effects, but these are always secondary to the profits which can be made by grabbing the coat-tails of the climate cult.
But, it's still important to get facts right because if we're going to win these arguments we can't afford to have people say "haha - you're wrong".
Energy Corrected Milk Yield is a measure of the fat and protein content of milk.
I have re-read the paper again now and still think it's ambiguous. However, even a small reduction in yield still required more cows to produce the same output.
Hi David - thanks for the reply and for continuing to produce these excellent articles. I do agree it's very ambiguous, they sometimes use "Yield" to refer to the amount of milk produced (which would be my default interpretation of the word) and to sometimes to refer to the amount of CH4 produced, which is just sloppy writing IMHO. And they do call out the fact that the government has to compensate farmers for the reduced milk yield, which means it's significant.
Good to know that you can avoid this stuff in the UK by buying organic, although not everyone wants to pay the difference. Hopefully this setback in Denmark will make UK supermarkets rethink things.
This isn't about cows - that's just the excuse. It's about control, about forcing rationing of meat. I have no idea why these stupid policies are being forced on us. Everything is about forcing down consumption - food, fuel, energy, water.
Is it really a last ditch attempt at communism?
The Danes need more sunlight. Any ‘additive’ to make a cow not behave like a cow is a very deranged and very sick person. These greenies won’t eat gmo corn but try to change the basic function of a cows digestive process. Reducing meat consumption is just anti-human; but consistent with their handlers in the WEF.
These people will wither in the cold if they don’t wake up!
Whatever people think about methane, the Bovaer story should worry anyone who cares about animal welfare, food quality and basic common sense. Mandating an additive that appears to cut milk yields almost as much as emissions, comes with its own safety warnings and is now being linked to health problems in Danish herds looks far more like policy theatre than serious climate action.
What frustrates me most is how little respect there is for the ruminant carbon cycle and for the farmers who actually know their cows and land. Instead of investing in better grazing, diverse pastures and genuinely regenerative systems, we are throwing money at a product that seems to make cows sicker and farmers more dependent.
Whatever the “solution” is, it cannot be poisoning the animals we rely on and calling it progress.
Not stupidity just deliberate attempt to prevent meat being available to us all
I was maybe too mild when I published my own piece on 3-NOP half a year ago. I merely advocated for thorough trials, since there obviously is no urgency to roll it it out. Meanwhile, we know that cattle have lower milk yields, get sick and even collapse when consuming 3-NOP, which has led to a halt of the trials in Scandinavia. Based on these findings, we need to make dosing of 3-NOP into cattle feed illegal. Also, this should be the single last time a new chemical or pharmaceutical is rolled out on a widespread basis without proper longitudinal testing, be it in cattle or humans.
https://www.wildhorsewisdom.xyz/p/horses-do-fart?r=31a4ti&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false