One Farmers point of view

[Delaney]

Well, I was actually referring to their consumption rate. Cattle today have been selectively bred to eat a lot, grow quickly and maintain a high soft tissue mass relative to their wildtype counterparts, and they inhabit an environment where food is not limiting, and thus their metabolism optimises for rapid, rather than complete, digestion. All animals do this. Whether it makes a difference to methane production I don't know, but my point was just that farming cattle is not some 'natural' thing that must be preserved exactly as it is today. Unless we accept that all man's activities are 'natural', then farming definitely isn't, and as for today's farming being the optimum, the Copernican principle states that it's safest to assume we are at some random point in a timeline - not at the end.

But back to your question, for which I had to resort to wikipedia. It varies a lot by region (as I'm sure all you cattle farmers know far better than I) but in general, I think we can say that ancestral cattle (aurochs) ate grass plus whatever higher-calorie plants were available. They do not seem to have generally existed in large herds, which suggests that their diet could be expected to be more diverse than today's cattle, since mass grazing reduces the browsable plant diversity. And of course they ate no processed food or manmade supplements. But mostly they ate grass.

My point was not to say that what is now, has always been but that there is always a reason in nature why something happens.
You can increase the level of a plants resistance to insects but you’ll raise the lectin levels which would also be toxic for humans.
You can add something to cows feed but now you’re interfering with a complex system.

If you wanted to recreate life on mars but missed one vitamin, everyone would die.

I don't want corporations, driven by profit motive, in the name of doing good, meddling with complex systems in my food chain. I certainly would avoid beef if that is the case and perhaps, that is part of the plan. They’ve been trying to reduce red meat consumption for over a decade now.

Unfortunately it will be the poor who will be the lab rats here.

 

[McAldo]

Was safe? Wait what, did i miss the memo?

I do not think you did.

People often conflate advertisement and scientific research. Probably because lots of adverts, even today, do pose as being scientifically based without actually claiming that explicitly.
For instance, having doctors (not medical researchers, but old good GPs) supposedly endorse cigarettes in an advert was a way to suggest that medical science had looked into tobacco safety. Which was not the case, at least not with results leading to scientific endorsement of smoking.
The probable causal relation between smoking and dying earlier of certain diseases had been identified and studied in Germany before WWII. A physician noticed that there was a statistical correlation, however they did not have a physiological explanation for it, medical science was not sufficiently advanced. This was a one-off research, soon forgotten.

After that there were very few studies, for a long time, and the tobacco companies did their best to counter them and keep the public in the dark, or in the smoke.

This said, it makes little sense to me to compare adverts from the 60's to scientific tests in 2024, also about different products, suggesting that if the adverts were mendacious, surely the tests are as well.
We are talking about completely different things and one cannot be used to logically to support the other.

The huge problem, as highlighted in Ben Goldacre's 'Bad science', is that there are countless legal ways for companies to provide the public with supposedly scientifically informed information, which is in reality is just plain bad faith advertisement. This includes sponsored articles in newspapers, which greatly damages the standing of scientific research in the mind of readers.
One day people are told that scientific consensus is for X, and another quite the opposite (see the frequent claims about studies proving that this and that food supplement, food, diet or whatever is beneficial or detrimental. Most are sponsored articles, which obscure actual published research)

Regarding this specific topic.
From scientific tests it would seem that using this product does not change or contaminate the milk. Not sure about the flesh though.
So the milk is probably safe and not a danger to consumers.

Whether using it is a good option, actually useful in combating emissions and making a meaningful impact given the cost, it is a different matter though.

 

[Fitzroy]

Interesting! What did cows used to eat?

I don't know what did they used to eat? I'm assuming you have some evidence that cow diets have not changed over the years. Or have dairy cow diets changed dramatically in the last 80 years since 1945 and the six editions of the Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle by the National Research Council.

 

[DrPhill]

Dunno, there'd be increased methane from the farmers leaning on gates etc.

 

[Fitzroy]

As one of my boys drinks about 4 pints daily these posts have pushed me to go and look more closely at this issue.

I thought this page gave good information regards the FSA decision on why it has been allowed for use,
https://www.food.gov.uk/research/outcome-of-assessment-of-3-nitrooxypropanol-3-nop-assessment

I also like this view.
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/...edia-posts-about-cattle-feed-additive-bovaer/

There seems some vagueness on if there are any detectable levels of 3-NOP in milk or if they are just less than the lower level of detection, which in tern means that anyone drinking milk will not exceed the determined acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 3-NOP.

Not overly concerned as it stands but more thinking to do.

Fitz.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

If you don’t understand the ‘appeal to authority’ argument, which you clearly don’t, you shouldn’t accuse others of being a fool.

I don't believe I accused anyone of being a fool.

But I do absolutely believe that you don't understand what "Argument from Authority Fallacy" actually means. It isn't what you're implying here.

1) I never claimed “all” scientists are bad or concerned with money. I made a point that it would be incredibly naive to consider them all as saints, given the historical evidence of past examples of extremely bad behaviour and given scientists are not immune from human nature.

Polite suggestion would be to go back and read your words. The overall implication that I personally observe is that you were doing your absolute damnedest to foist the mental picture of "scientists = bad".

2) If you don't like chlorinated chicken, then don’t eat it. Given that I only eat organic food unless caught out, I would strongly suggest no one else does either.

I never even suggested whether I "like it" or not. I simply asked for your input.

How can you understand that hormone injected beef, chlorinated chicken is bad,

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Nice one.

yet this contamination of the food cycle, that fundamentally alters a cows digestion, in anyway a good idea?

I didn't even begin to imply that I understand any of this. What I do suggest, however, is that a scientist/biologist who fundamentally understands this ought to be trusted. And that the regulator of the science and the regulator of the allowable additives into the food chain ought to be trusted. That definitely is not the same as "Argument from Authority". That's different altogether. Maybe read up on it?

Unless as I suggested, this debate divides perfectly along political lines? A point you seem to be proving so far.

I'd also politely suggest that you go back and read all of the posts that preceded yours, and I think you will find that it was YOU who first descended this subject onto a "righty versus lefty" footing. Bizarre that you did that - I noticed it immediately - and it guided my response - and you absolutely fell into the obvious trap I seeded for you to fall into. Chuckle.

To clarify, this topic has got ZERO to do with lefty/righty ideological views.

(Although I do acknowledge that it is largely a "righty" audience that has rallied against the additive by - and here I do have a hearty gut-laugh - guffaw - and chuckle - by ticktocking themselves pouring milk down the toilet. Which is something that I feel belongs only within the behaviour model of simpletons.)

 

[TRITON]

And therefore production reduced production would mean less methane

No No, we should be eating more meat. More dead cows equals less methane.

Simples

And I'm all for changing vegetarianism and veganism to capital offences.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Ah yes, the good old argument from authority.

Next you'll be saying "Follow the science"

Deja vu

That isn't what "Argument from Authority" Fallacy refers to.

Argument from Authority refers to an expert in a "potentially related field" posing as an expert in "something else" and that because they are an expert you ought to trust them on something for which they have no explicit or direct expertise.

For someone who possesses direct and explicit expertise on a topic - when they communicate on that topic - they are not guilty of a fallacious "Argument from Authority".

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

They said that about thalidomide…

Yep.

All current regulators are acutely aware that regulation failed in times past.
As a direct consequence, this means that modern regulation mechanisms are better.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

<snip>
Mostly because it’s the main way the EU can rob more of its citizens money without calling it a tax.
<snip>

^That's basically an ideologically motivated lie.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

But they were in the 1930’s and 1940’s when these adverts appeared.

View attachment 194008

View attachment 194009

And this is one of the most poignant lessons ever why we ought not to trust those organisations such as Tufton Street "think tanks", who are actually thinly disguised lobby groups who hide who funds them.
These tobacco companies knew explicitly that tobacco was directly damaging. Yet they advertised the opposite.
The parallels to Tufton Street are staggering in this day and age.

 

[artie]

That isn't what "Argument from Authority" Fallacy refers to.

Argument from Authority refers to an expert in a "potentially related field" posing as an expert in "something else" and that because they are an expert you ought to trust them on something for which they have no explicit or direct expertise.

For someone who possesses direct and explicit expertise on a topic - when they communicate on that topic - they are not guilty of a fallacious "Argument from Authority".

Either you or I are mistaken.

My definition of an "argument from authority" is taking the word of an "expert" just because they are an expert without considering their reasoning.

Just stating I have a degree in "X" so I know doesn't cut it

 

[danst96]

if you say ‘why can’t humans stop trying to interfere with nature’ or more precisely ‘evolutionary biology’, you would be ignoring the profit motive.

Monsanto tried to privatise nature. They sold their wares under the guise of ‘doing good’, hocking them around India and other places they could con farmers.
Their wonder seeds created problems with the water tables, the land became infertile; farmers killed themselves.

Bill and Co. just moved on.

European politicians seems so intensely concerned about the environment. Mostly because it’s the main way the EU can rob more of its citizens money without calling it a tax.
Yet they don’t seem concerned with collapsing birth rates. Lower birth rates, less pollution, yet we’re importing more people than in European history.

None of it makes any sense.

‘We’re saving the planet’ Ok can I buy a cheap Chinese electric car?
‘No we have to save out auto industry’
Ok I thought we were saving the planet.

It’s all b*ll*cks.

A cheap Chinese car that's definitely very good for the environment. We as the general population are so wildly naive and think everything is so simple and seemingly only look at the parts we want to see. I.e. electric car = good, cows farting= catastrophic, simply because we are force fed this by many global agendas. Meanwhile global corporations and individuals have a singular larger impact than entire countries, that's before you consider entire industries or countries like China or India. We are fools If we take everything at face value. I will not buy the absolute bull we are fed daily. The impact of the things that governments like UK and Canada force on their population is nothing short of ridiculous virtue signaling. I'm not writing off all initiatives, I agree it's better to reduce our waste overall and try reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we emit but taxing the hell out of us and thinking we can mess with nature and that it would make any meaningful impact is absolutely ridiculous and im so glad to see this is blowing up in the UK.

 

[Vulcan]

How did you arrive at a figure of 6% when it has Enteric fermentation at 11% and animal waste at 4%, making the total percentage from animals as 15%

My point was about the reduction of methane from Bovaer which doesn’t as far as I’m aware alter methane from animal waste? Animal waste is also surely all animals, not just dairy cows.

 

[Vulcan]

Either way, any reduction is a step in the right direction is it not ?

A 0.5% reduction in global methane hardly seems worthwhile to me. Especially as it’s messing with our food supply.

We should be looking at the Oil and Gas industry where much larger gains can be made.

 

[Delaney]

This said, it makes little sense to me to compare adverts from the 60's to scientific tests in 2024, also about different products, suggesting that if the adverts were mendacious, surely the tests are as well.
We are talking about completely different things and one cannot be used to logically to support the other.


Regarding this specific topic.
From scientific tests it would seem that using this product does not change or contaminate the milk.

Your first argument seems to suffer from a logical dissonance.
What the scientific community of today thinks, will shock the scientific community of tomorrow. In what ways, we have no way if knowing.
The rational for making comparisons to the past, is that it shows how in spite of common sense ‘smoking is likely bad, humans don’t need to do it to survive’ it was advertised as good by selective research papers, doctors and the general authoritative community.
The problem was not that we didn’t have ‘the science’, the problem was money gives people motivation and incentive.
You seem to fall into the same trap that ‘scientist are good’, ‘the scientific consensus’.
Science is not about consensus,’it’s about the truth. Again this appeal to authority is being trotted out. You can complete this circle by just going back to the top of this text.

Regarding the scientific testing of this, again you seem to suggest that because ‘scientists’ have said it is not harmful, then it isn’t. You then side step any critique of this position by saying we can only compare things to similar previous findings/data.
Well in this regard, there is no similar data and or findings. This is a new ‘technology’ and currently the findings are mixed but peoples motivations and incentives don’t change.
For example the benefits of this synthetic feed additive seems to trail off to almost nothing and the data collected to support this ‘additive’ was done on ‘New herds’, which leads to false data. Every time they run the data, they get the initial bump to support their findings.
We see data from Ireland denouncing the claims given by the company and that the reduction is far less, to balance this you then have to increase the dose at levels likely not part of the study.!

Again and again we see this deferral to authority, yet we have ample evidence that these ‘scientists’ are just as fallible as everyone else. Pier review papers have been corrupted along political lines (see James Lindsay, Peter Borgesian, Bret Weinstein) and ‘Scientific America’ last year said there was “no scientific reason why trans women shouldn’t be in women’s sports’

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belong-on-girls-sports-teams/

So I’m sorry. Science has no legs to stand on. Show me the data, let me see that data forensically analysed by independents, not the industry checking its own homework.

This is the contamination of our babies food supply.
We don’t get a second chance at this. What are we going to feed our infants?
Who is going to apologise when things go wrong?

The cost of this product is $50 per cattle, so that’s 1.5B x $50.

There is your incentive. We’re just rinse and repeating the past.

 

[RobinBHM]

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.

That doesn’t like the words of any farmer I’ve ever met

 

[paulrbarnard]

Yep.

All current regulators are acutely aware that regulation failed in times past.
As a direct consequence, this means that modern regulation mechanisms are better.

I dare say they will be saying that In another 70 years. Way too many examples of ‘research’ designed to prove a specific view.

 

[RobinBHM]

I personally think homogenised milk is a bigger problem

 

[Agent_zed]

A 0.5% reduction in global methane hardly seems worthwhile to me. Especially as it’s messing with our food supply.

We should be looking at the Oil and Gas industry where much larger gains can be made.

I'm not sure on a global level the difference it may make but just to note that Methane has approx 20X global warming potential than CO2. So it has a greater impact than it may appear from the percentages alone.

You are correct though that oil/gas companies need to be held to account as they frequently off gas.