One Farmers point of view

[Trevor Molyneux]

It is in all your car and truck engines, in fact pretty much all liquid cooled internal combustion engines. Don't drain it onto the ground or leave it in an open container. It tastes sweet and your pets and wild animals nearby will drink it, often killing them.

Last month we bought a steer and if was killed, hung to age and custom cut for us. 700lb+ of delicious organic beef for less than the cost of hamburger at the local supermarket. Got the organs for the dogs and the bones cut up for soup making too.

Industrial agriculture and food production is bad for everything.

Worried about the planet. Have only one kid and the destruction by over use of it by ourselves is solved without a massive war, famine or disease happening.

Pete

The antifreeze in your car is ethylene glycol, NOT propylene glycol.

 

[Trevor Molyneux]

Thanks for the alert. It is more than 'just' propylene glycol.

"The methane supplement is made of silicon dioxide, propylene glycol and the organic compound 3-nitrooxypropanol (known as 3-NOP)."

And you can avoid 'contaminated' products:

"Meanwhile, several other large UK-based dairy companies, including Yeo Valley Organic and local organic dairies, were quick to confirm that they don’t use the methane additive."

Both quotes from https://www.msn.com/en-gb/foodanddr...at-s-taking-social-media-by-storm/ar-AA1vcJ4d

Silicon dioxide is normally referred to as silica. This is the principal component of sand and many soils and bedrock. It is essentially inert so I assume it is just a filler to bulk it up (easier to manage the dose with larger volumes). The propylene glycol will just be a solvent. It is just the 3-NOP that is the active ingredient. Most human pills and medicines are exactly the same; an active ingredient, a solvent and a bulking agent to manage the dose size.

 

[DrPhill]

The issue is people have found out that Arla manufactures products for Yeo and Yeo will not provide any information about which products it is.

What part of their website is ambiguous?

“Yeo Valley Organic does not allow feed additives for the reduction of methane within our supply chain.“

 

[TRITON]

I have met the cows…

I've met a number of cows too(or bullocks rather) but to quote a previous employer " They all look the same with their jackets off "

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with 'the farmers point of view'

What does the farmer actually know ? Sure you can say its microbiome of cows(fungi etc) but this is just a word and thats pretty much all farmers can quote of it. They might have a basic understanding, but not an in depth understanding.
If the farmer has a phd in microbiology, then his point of view holds water so to speak, otherwise he's just quoting words he has no real understanding of.

As a butcher i had a basic understanding of cross contamination, or of some diseases that affect animals, but no more than your common mans understanding.
That is until i took a course in meat inspection, of 2 years run by the school of veterinary medicine. That gave me an understanding of the lymphatic system, or how contamination works, of how bacteria is spread and the danger it poses. But even then it is only a 2 year basic course that would qualify me as a meat inspector, but in depth, you'd need to do a 4 or 6 year in depth course with academic qualifications.
So I could examine the lymph nodes of an animal post slaughter(or any other obvious signs- build up of lymph fluid,, to see if any changes were present, and condemn it or set it aside for further study and keep it out the food chain. But the actual understanding of the mechanics of it would be well above my pay grade.

People on facebook run off to wiki to get a few buzz words they throw into the conversation, but thats as far as their understanding of the subject goes. And in fact are more a hindrance than a help, and i'd go so far as they are a danger to public health

And as to the daily mail article, the end paragraph pretty much sums it all up in context of how the daily mail frames its articles.

Theyre using the word 'contaminate' when it is really just an additive, like the many others in other products. There are preservatives on many foods - are they contaminates ?

"Questionably linked to cancer" more fear mongering, again the usual tabloid board of fare. Questionably is a term used when something is not entirely accurate or true. So yes there might be a cancer issue, but in 1:100,000,000 cases, or such that it is negligible as a real risk.

 

[Chubber]

The microbiome of the cow is without doubt one of the most truly amazing examples of natures perfections. It possesses the ability to convert low quality vegetation, via the microbial process, into meat and milk of superior nutritious value. Furthermore its’ waste products serve to nourish the soil and sustain local ecology.
I despair at these nouveau scientists, who are reductionist in their thought process, and, who foolishly believe they can ‘tamper’ with the fragilities of nature, and expect positive outcomes.
In my lifetimes experience as a farmer I have learnt one thing, and that is, you cannot cheat nature without dire consequence.
By chemically altering the microbiota of the cow, this, will in turn have a negative influence on the animals immune system, bearing in mind 70 per cent of the immune system comes from the gut. If we consider epigenetic changes further down the line, and its influence on the entire food chain, then the consequences to humans are limitless and unthinkable.
When these agendas are forced upon us with such vigour, then it only serves to arouse suspicion, and begs to ask the question, why?
If you ‘follow the science,’ eventually the trail tends to go cold, then you pick up a new trail and arrive at that destination which starts and ends with money, power, and control of the human population.
Before being swept along with the latest media pedalled campaigns, please consider these powerful agendas very carefully, allow common sense to prevail and put your trust in the ancient ways of mother nature.

Think also of the effect of the former high antibiotic use in cattle...cow pats that took too long to decompose, wouldn't support invertebrates that aided the process and soured the soil beneath.
Yup! Mess with Mater Natura and she'll bite your ar%e.

 

[selectortone]

People on facebook run off to wiki to get a few buzz words they throw into the conversation, but thats as far as their understanding of the subject goes

Yep.

 

[artie]

I've met a number of cows too(or bullocks rather) but to quote a previous employer " They all look the same with their jackets off "

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with 'the farmers point of view'

What does the farmer actually know ? Sure you can say its microbiome of cows(fungi etc) but this is just a word and thats pretty much all farmers can quote of it. They might have a basic understanding, but not an in depth understanding.
If the farmer has a phd in microbiology, then his point of view holds water so to speak, otherwise he's just quoting words he has no real understanding of.

As a butcher i had a basic understanding of cross contamination, or of some diseases that affect animals, but no more than your common mans understanding.
That is until i took a course in meat inspection, of 2 years run by the school of veterinary medicine. That gave me an understanding of the lymphatic system, or how contamination works, of how bacteria is spread and the danger it poses. But even then it is only a 2 year basic course that would qualify me as a meat inspector, but in depth, you'd need to do a 4 or 6 year in depth course with academic qualifications.
So I could examine the lymph nodes of an animal post slaughter(or any other obvious signs- build up of lymph fluid,, to see if any changes were present, and condemn it or set it aside for further study and keep it out the food chain. But the actual understanding of the mechanics of it would be well above my pay grade.

People on facebook run off to wiki to get a few buzz words they throw into the conversation, but thats as far as their understanding of the subject goes. And in fact are more a hindrance than a help, and i'd go so far as they are a danger to public health

And as to the daily mail article, the end paragraph pretty much sums it all up in context of how the daily mail frames its articles.

Theyre using the word 'contaminate' when it is really just an additive, like the many others in other products. There are preservatives on many foods - are they contaminates ?

"Questionably linked to cancer" more fear mongering, again the usual tabloid board of fare. Questionably is a term used when something is not entirely accurate or true. So yes there might be a cancer issue, but in 1:100,000,000 cases, or such that it is negligible as a real risk.

Should we take from that, that you are in favor of giving this additive to cows to suppress methane production?

 

[TRITON]

Should we take from that, that you are in favor of giving this additive to cows to suppress methane production?

What you should take from that Artie, is to listen more to those who actually understand the science, and less to none of those who pen articles in the daily mail or facebook and have no understanding of the science.

 

[accipiter]

The trouble is , it is the ancillary products like yoghurt and cheese that will prove more difficult to obtain., As Arla supplies many other dairy businesses with milk , it is going to be quite complicated working out which products to trust.

I worked at a creamery from 1998 to 2016, processing the milk from the local farms into the different cream fats - 48% double, 40% whipping and export, 18% single - for the supermarkets, busiest time being Christmas. Owned initially by Express Dairies, then Milk Link, then a French company: Andros (less said the better). The milk coming from Arla farms, in Arla tankers. After Andros took over the only cream fat processed was 40% - and skim milk.

Andros make various dairy products sold by many supermarkets... such as.trifles, yoghurt, etc. It'll be interesting to see what other knock on effect this has elsewhere besides Tesco and Lurpak butter...

 

[DrPhill]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with 'the farmers point of view'

I can understand why. I have post-doc experience of science (on the boundary between organic chemistry and microbology) and likewise get frustrated by people that cherry pick words from within a scientific discipline and use then inappropriately outside the discipline. It is as if they believe that by stealing a 'magic' word from the scientists they can increase the credentials of their argument.

However, I am also aware that many scientists have too much faith in their latest 'truth'. In reality science is a collection of 'best explanations',some of which are very reliable because they have stood the test of time, others are still shiney-new and should be treated with more caution.

If my experience of science taught me anything it is that 'dynamic equilibria resist change until they break'. Biological systems are very complicated dynamic equilibria, and their resistance to change leads to unintended consequences (which are often obvious in hindsight). So I have a great deal of sympathy for the view of the original poster that messing with nature is likely to be a bad idea.

If methane is a problem for the environment, and cows are a major source of methane, then it seems to me that reducing the number of cows would be a better solution.

 

[accipiter]

Make of it what you will

https://food.blog.gov.uk/2024/12/05/bovaer-cow-feed-additive-explained/

 

[Vulcan]

Think also of the effect of the former high antibiotic use in cattle...cow pats that took too long to decompose, wouldn't support invertebrates that aided the process and soured the soil beneath.
Yup! Mess with Mater Natura and she'll bite your ar%e.

Yeo valley say they only use antibiotics when needed and discontinue it when the vet gives the all clear.

Messing with an animals guts to alter its natural digestive system seems wrong to me.

When someone starts talking about science to prove something’s safe I often think of this scientist.
And all the government departments that allowed it to happen.

 

[Delaney]

The microbiome of the cow is without doubt one of the most truly amazing examples of natures perfections. It possesses the ability to convert low quality vegetation, via the microbial process, into meat and milk of superior nutritious value. Furthermore its’ waste products serve to nourish the soil and sustain local ecology.
I despair at these nouveau scientists, who are reductionist in their thought process, and, who foolishly believe they can ‘tamper’ with the fragilities of nature, and expect positive outcomes.
In my lifetimes experience as a farmer I have learnt one thing, and that is, you cannot cheat nature without dire consequence.
By chemically altering the microbiota of the cow, this, will in turn have a negative influence on the animals immune system, bearing in mind 70 per cent of the immune system comes from the gut. If we consider epigenetic changes further down the line, and its influence on the entire food chain, then the consequences to humans are limitless and unthinkable.
When these agendas are forced upon us with such vigour, then it only serves to arouse suspicion, and begs to ask the question, why?
If you ‘follow the science,’ eventually the trail tends to go cold, then you pick up a new trail and arrive at that destination which starts and ends with money, power, and control of the human population.
Before being swept along with the latest media pedalled campaigns, please consider these powerful agendas very carefully, allow common sense to prevail and put your trust in the ancient ways of mother nature.

These scientists aren’t reductionists and they aren’t fools.
Scientists like doctors are not inherently ‘good’, as many mainstream commentators would insist on you believing. We have all the evidence needed from historical events, to show that they are capable of incredibly harmful behaviour and that for money, a large cohort of them will do almost anything.
It is often left wing types who insist we worship scientists (Brexit was a good example) but what they haven’t understood, don’t know or simply can’t imagine, is that many scientists would sell their grandmother, for a research grant. They have no morals what so ever, or what little morals they do have, can be easily swept aside for a lab and some funding. Most scientists can be easily persuaded that what they’re doing is good because the very nature of scientists is somewhat narcissistic. They believe and are motivated by the idea that they can save the planet, or that their next discovery will make them immortal.

A potential problem here is ‘good’ scientists may feel encouraged to say nothing because if they do, they will effectively be coming out against a product that could ‘save the planet’ and what better way to ruin your career, than standing in the way of the hegemonic liberal zeitgeist ‘climate change’.
Every left wing/mainstream outlet will be compelled to denounce you as a kook.

So yes, these could well be ‘bad people’, doing ‘bad things’. Their primary motivations are financial and ideological and so it’s going to be very hard to stop them because they will have the support of radical environmental ideologues.
I can already hear the remainer/covid brigade on here demanding we ‘follow the science’.

 

[John Brown]

These scientists aren’t reductionists and they aren’t fools.
Scientists like doctors are not inherently ‘good’ people, as many commentators would insist on you believing. We have all the evidence needed from historical events, to show that they are capable of incredibly harmful behaviour and that for money, a large cohort of them will do almost anything.
It is often left wing people who insist we should worship them but what they haven’t understood, don’t know or simply can’t imagine, is that many scientists would sell their grandmother, for a research grant. They have no morals what so ever, or what little morals they do have, can be easily swept aside for a lab and some funding. Most scientists can be easily persuaded that what they’re doing will save the planet because the very nature of scientists js somewhat narcissistic. They believe and are motivated by the idea that they can save the planet, or that their next discovery will make them immortal.

This is how you end up with ‘scientists’ pushing something that is clearly bad news.

The problem is, good scientists are now encouraged to say nothing of whether this product is bad because if they do, they will have to effectively come out against a product that can ‘save the environment’ and what better way to ruin your career, than denouncing a product cooked up by a bunch of bad scientists, that could ‘save the world’?
Every left wing mainstream outlet would denounce you as a kook.

So good scientists are going to keep quiet, great ones are going to come out and be shunned by the BBC and left wing groups (think covid) and the bad scientists can have free reign over food, agriculture and any other area that is related to ‘the environment’.

So yes, these are bad people, doing bad things and it’s going to be very hard to stop them because they will have the support of radical political ideologues and gullible voters aka lefties, greens, do gooders, you name it. This is the new covid battle.
I can hear the lefties on here demanding we ‘follow the science’.

Give it a rest, please!

 

[Delaney]

It is in all your car and truck engines, in fact pretty much all liquid cooled internal combustion engines. Don't drain it onto the ground or leave it in an open container. It tastes sweet and your pets and wild animals nearby will drink it, often killing them.

Last month we bought a steer and if was killed, hung to age and custom cut for us. 700lb+ of delicious organic beef for less than the cost of hamburger at the local supermarket. Got the organs for the dogs and the bones cut up for soup making too.

Industrial agriculture and food production is bad for everything.

Worried about the planet. Have only one kid and the destruction by over use of it by ourselves is solved without a massive war, famine or disease happening.

Pete

Pete

It took more than one person to make you. You should at least put back what you took out.

 

[Delaney]

Give it a rest, please!

Do you think this additive is a good idea John? Will you be happy to consume it?
Might as well try and get you to actually add something to the topic for a change.

 

[artie]

listen more to those who actually understand the science,

Ah yes, the good old argument from authority.

Next you'll be saying "Follow the science"

Deja vu

 

[John Brown]

Do you think this additive is a good idea John? Will you be happy to consume it?
Might as well try and get you to actually add something to the topic for a change.

I don't know, I'm not qualified to judge. I don't think it has much to do with left or right, though.

I did, however, give my opinion in post #337 of the Climate Change Policy thread, in which the subject was raised, without any political overtones, by your mate Tony.

 

[Delaney]

If the farmer has a phd in microbiology, then his point of view holds water so to speak, otherwise he's just quoting words he has no real understanding of.

And as to the daily mail article

They're using the word 'contaminate' when it is really just an additive

"Questionably linked to cancer" more fear mongering, again the usual tabloid

No offence TRITON I’m sure you’re wonderful butcher but this is exactly the type of thing I was talking about.
Your appeal to authority is the problem and the main reason why and how, massive corporations with bad actors (scientists), can create a product that will make them a fortune, under the guise of ‘saving the environment’.

I think we can all agree that adding nothing is safer. Adding something will have some sort of effect and as such, we are experimenting on the poor and their food chain.

 

[Delaney]

I don't know, I'm not qualified to judge. I don't think it has much to do with left or right, though.

I did, however, give my opinion in post #337 of the Climate Change Policy thread, in which the subject was raised, without any political overtones, by your mate Tony.

Fell free to copy and paste your opinion here.

I don't know Tony personally but he seems quite sensible.

This issue absolutely will fall along political lines. I’m just pointing that out.