Arla, the owner of the UK’s largest dairy cooperative, recently announced the start of a trial, with around 30 of its dairy farms set to feed Bovaer® to their cows in an attempt to reduce methane production. Whilst the original announcement spoke quite positively about Arla’s “commitment to reducing the impact of dairy production” in terms of carbon emissions, the reaction of some of the milk drinking UK public has been decidedly negative, citing concerns over food safety. With some individuals taking to social media to show themselves dramatically throwing away milk and butter in protest, it would be easy to hesitate when adding any dairy products to your shopping basket right now. But what is actually going on and should we be concerned about the safety of UK dairy products?
Table of contents
- What is the Arla trial?
- What is Bovaer?
- Why feed Bovaer?
- Is Bovaer safe?
- Why the controversy over the Arla trial?
- Are all dairy cows in the UK being fed Bovaer?
- What if I want to avoid dairy products from cows fed Bovaer?
- Is Bovaer the answer in tackling climate change?
- How effective is Bovaer?
- Conclusion
- Further reading:
What is the Arla trial?
Arla aims to assess the practicalities of using this product in various UK dairy farm systems. And to determine how its use can be rolled out across a larger group of farms cost-effectively.
The trial announced by Arla is NOT to test the safety of the cattle feed additive Bovaer as this is already well established.
So, what is Bovaer and how does it work?
What is Bovaer?
Bovaer is a powdered feed supplement that would be added to cattle feed on a daily basis; much like mineral mixes are. During manufacturing, the active ingredient 3-nitroxypropanol (3-NOP) is diluted with propylene glycol. (A commonly used human food and cosmetics additive). And then dried using silica. (Silicon dioxide, a naturally occurring compound, again used in production of powdered food stuffs and in formulating tablets for human consumption).
When fed to cows, Bovaer inhibits an enzyme that produces methane gas as part of the normal digestive process in cows. In doing so, Bovaer itself is broken back down again. Extensive testing has demonstrated that the metabolites resulting from the breakdown of Bovaer do NOT pass into the milk; cannot be detected in meat (at slaughter); and that most of the 3-NOP metabolite is gone from the cow’s bloodstream in less than 3 hours.
Why feed Bovaer?
As cattle go about their day, efficiently turning grass and other forage into milk and meat, their natural digestive processes produce methane gas within the cow’s stomach (rumen). The gas is then largely burped off. But methane is a greenhouse gas, which is considered to have a more potent environmental warming effect than carbon dioxide. At COP26 in Glasgow, methane reduction was identified as highly significant in the battle to limit global warming, at least in the short term.
Is Bovaer safe?
Bovaer was developed around 15 years ago and has since undergone extensive trials and independent safety testing to ensure efficacy as well as human and animal safety. This work includes over 150 studies and more than 85 peer-reviewed articles; as well as regulatory applications which are reviewed by independent authorities acting from both human and animal health backgrounds.
No risk has been demonstrated to consumers of dairy products or meat, nor to the animals themselves. And this work has led to Bovaer being approved for use as a cattle feed additive in over 68 countries worldwide over the last few years including the 2023 approval for use from the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the UK as well its European counterpart (EFSA).
Why the controversy over the Arla trial?
It seems that some information linked to Bovaer has been misinterpreted. And unfortunately in today’s climate of instant social media posting, this has snowballed rather rapidly into claims of cancer-causing or fertility-damaging ingredients being added to our milk.
Manufacturing
The raw ingredients of Bovaer come with standard safety advice relating to handling of the compounds during the manufacturing process, including the need to wear protective equipment to avoid inhalation of the powder particles. Provision of this type of safety advice is standard practice throughout processing, regardless of the product being made. Bovaer itself (rather than the raw ingredients) is formulated in such a way as to be safe for the farmer to handle as part of normal feed mixing practices.
Animal and human health concerns
Concerns over fertility effects and carcinogenic (cancer causing) properties again seem to be down to basic misunderstanding of the scientific test data. Some tests refer to the rate of exposure of lab rats to the raw ingredients; others talk about the inclusion rate of the active ingredient in the Bovaer mix; and some are dealing with the amount of Bovaer actually fed per cow, so it is easy to misinterpret the findings.
When the raw ingredient 3-NOP was applied at very high doses (300mg per kilogram of bodyweight per day) to lab rats during testing, some benign tumours were noted. These were not cancerous and were not seen at any of the lower doses tested. This will frequently be the case with compounds being tested as very high levels are deliberately tested to see what the adverse effects might be.
Again, this is testing of the raw ingredient, not Bovaer itself. The dose at which the ingredient 3-NOP has been approved represents a safety factor of 170 from the rate at which these changes were seen in rodents. This safety also relates to potential effects on the cows consuming the feed; not to the consumer who, as previously stated, has been shown to be safe due to the lack of transfer of Bovaer or its component into milk or meat.
In short, UK regulators have specifically concluded that 3-NOP is not carcinogenic or otherwise harmful to animals when used at the correct inclusion rate in Bovaer; and is not present in the milk or from these animals either.
Are all dairy cows in the UK being fed Bovaer?
Not at all. The Arla study involves a very tiny number of farms in the UK at the moment. Many producers have acted in recent weeks to declare that Bovaer is not used on their farms. This move to distance themselves from Bovaer is not necessarily through concern about its use. In fact many companies including M&S have discussed using Bovaer on their farms in the future. But there is a need, especially for small producers, to act to protect their product and livelihood from some of the negative fallout and misunderstanding resulting from the Arla announcement.
In previous market research consumers have indicated a desire to buy food products that are produced sustainably in terms of climate change; even indicating that they would pay more for them. Yet when it comes right down to it, only time will tell whether the use of Bovaer and other similar approaches will be accepted by the UK public or not.
What if I want to avoid dairy products from cows fed Bovaer?
The simple answer is to know where your milk and dairy products come from and that’s not difficult to do.
- Although the traditional milkman has become an endangered species in the UK since the rise of the supermarket, there are now many independent local dairy farms and producers around who will be happy to tell you more about their cows and their milk. Whether they sell direct from their farm, a nearby farm shop, via milk vending machines or through local stores or deliveries, why not look up your local dairy supplier and ask them directly.
- Many producers that sell within supermarkets (as well as farmers that sell direct to the public) have joined the list of Bovaer Free Farms so it is possible to identify brands that have confirmed their status, but that do also sell in the supermarkets.
- Organic milk in the UK will be from Bovaer free farms – yes, even the organic milk produced by Arla! The Soil Association who set the organic standards in the UK state that “all ingredients of a feed additive must be actively approved for use and deemed safe and nutritionally useful for the animal” in order to be fed on organic farms. Bovaer has been shown to be safe but is of no nutritional benefit to the animal to which it is fed and therefore is not approved for use on organic farms. There are other considerations with organic farming – check out the Soil Association website for more details.
So, whether you are comfortable with the use of Bovaer or not, there is no reason to change or reduce your dairy consumption providing you know where it comes from.
Is Bovaer the answer in tackling climate change?
This is probably the bigger question. Whilst reducing cow methane output appears possible, safe and effective in the short term, are we in danger of making farming the scapegoat and failing to make the bigger, sometimes harder to accept changes that are required to combat climate change for the generations to come?
Both AHDB (the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board) and the National Farmers Union (NFU) have been part of government led roundtable discussions on methane suppressing feed products. And they highlight that farms are currently being asked to produce more for less in all areas. Agriculture is at times blamed for contributing to climate change whilst suffering the consequences of it; coming under pressure to sequester more carbon; increase natural biodiversity; maintain high food and animal health & welfare standards but keep food costs low. Recent reaction to the Arla trial would suggest that some people expect all this without involving new technologies such as methane suppressing feed additives. It’s a tall order for sure!
How effective is Bovaer?
DSM-Firmenich, the producers of Bovaer, estimate that methane outputs can be reduced by up to 30% in dairy cows. And potentially 45% in some beef cows by feeding Bovaer daily. Fed to one dairy cow for one year, they say Bovaer can save around 1 ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) even when the CO2e created by the manufacturing process is taken into account. This is equated to 127,000 smart phone charges per cow. Or, when fed to 3 cows, taking one family sized car off the road.
But methane is a relatively short-lived gas, so are these comparisons fair?
Currently GWP100 is the internationally accepted measure of the warming potential of a gas; reflecting its effect over 100 years when compared to carbon dioxide (CO2). AHDB, however, are calling for dual reporting of greenhouse gas emissions using GWP* alongside GWP100 to better reflect the impact of short-lived gases such as methane. GWP*, it says, shows no additional warming in the last 20 years attributable to UK methane emissions.
So, whilst agriculture will undoubtedly play its part in the future control of global warming, there are many other areas that must be considered too. Basic aviation emissions figures suggest a family of 4 flying from London to Lanzarote and back would generate around 8 tonnes of CO2e. By not taking this journey, we could avoid feeding Bovaer daily to 8 dairy cows for a whole year. But which are we willing to do?
Conclusion
Of course, it is not that simple, there is no direct choice to be made between one and the other. But if we want to take to social media with our sunshine holiday snaps one week, can we really afford to be posting videos protesting about a milk producer’s efforts to reduce methane emissions the next? Overall, it seems to me that we all have a responsibility here; to be thoughtful in the choices we make; to try to understand situations a little better before lashing out the socials; and to accept that we are all going to have to compromise somewhere if we want to have a meaningful impact on climate change.
Further reading:
- Arla original announcement
- Arla update statement
- Dsm-firmenich (Bovaer producers) statement
- How cows can help us fight climate change – by the makers of Bovaer
- Outcome of assessment of 3-NOP – by the Food Standards Agency
- Safety and efficacy of Bovaer – paper by the European Food Standards Agency
- Spare a thought for farmers and their vets at Christmas
- Why do cows bloat? – Vet Help Direct
- Why do sheep and goats have 4 stomachs? Ruminant digestion for the smallholder – Vet Help Direct
- Why British beef is more environmentally friendly than you might think – Vet Help Direct
Discussion
Sorry but seaweed does same job and at end of the days we been fed overs the years many stories oh this is safe that is safe just to be told that such like substance used should never have been used. Just like some of our fertilisers
and weed killers containg glyphosphate,so I think ill make my own judgementment that if a cow cant feed without man interfearing with man made chemicals that has hardly been trialed by a uk leading authority then said products I dont want nothing to do withat end of the day the choice should be upto the customer not some thing that is forced upon us
It has been tested, extensively, in many countries across the world, and every trial has found that it’s safe for the cow and the food chain more widely. The issue with the seaweed trials is getting enough of the correct seaweed without causing more environmental damage by harvesting vast amounts; in this product, the active component has been synthesised and repeatedly tested. This trial in the UK isn’t to see if it’s safe: we already know that it is. It’s to see how practical it is to use on-farm.