One Farmers point of view

[paulrbarnard]

It's more that we know that the right are always wrong. The right look for excuses for not doing things. The blame game is popular. Or economical theories which are supposed to pay off years later, such as de-regulating, or encouraging growth.
The left don't need a theory - we just know that things have to be done a.s.a.p.

Well left is sinister

 

[Chris152]

In my lifetimes experience as a farmer I have learnt one thing, and that is, you cannot cheat nature without dire consequence.
[...]
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.

Haven't farmers been messing with 'nature' since, well, farming started? And as we see in many ways, often with pretty terrible consequences?

And I get that people are concerned when a new substance is added to dairy cattle feed, but are those people putting the same diligence into questioning all the other substances we add (intentionally and otherwise) into the food chain? There are rather a lot, many bi-products of the industrial processes that have caused the problem that Bovaer seeks to address.

 

[woodieallen]

That’s interesting that the FSA permit an ingredient of less than 2% not to be listed. Are you sure it’s correct as just looking at the packaging of a few items they all seem to have items listed with 0.1 and 0.2g per 100g ingredients?

Will ask the wife for t'were she who told me.

I can still see no reason why dairy products shouldn't be labelled properly if they contain the oil by-product and so let people make their own choice.

 

[ey_tony]

Their wording is very precise - they cannot exclude the possibility of the additive being found in samples not presented to them.

A similar case may be made for little green men living in burrows on the far side of Mars - we can't exclude the possibility as mankind has never been to search exhaustively for them.

Difficult to exclude a negative no matter how unlikely or implausible!

Bovaer is not a food additive - the milk apparently has no traces of it. Most food ingredients (possibly excluding those sold as "organic") have chemicals applied in part of their production - agri-fertilisers, antibiotics, chlorine, fungicides etc etc.

Unless Bovaer is a naturally occurring ingredient found in food sources which combine to make up animal feeds then it is an an additive! No ambiguity there!

As for the wording being very precise. Just because they didn't find any evidence linking the chemical to samples of milk they looked at, that is no guarantee that it can't find it's way into the food chain.
As for not finding any evidence of it not being found in samples tested. I didn't see any golden eagles flying around when I looked out of my windows this morning but it doesn't mean that they don't exist.
If the authorities publish test data from a sufficient number of independent peer reviewed extensively tested samples then that would reassure members of the public that it is genuinely safe.

I also fail to see why they would NOT label it on milk products...why wouldn't they? Surely, to allay fears of it being secretly added to feed they would publish whether or not it's added to animal food stuff.
I'm not against the chemical being added to the food source of animals if it can be proven to be safe and substantially helps with reducing atmospheric methane but unless it has been rigorously and thoroughly studied then no I'm not in favour.

 

[RobinBHM]

it is an an additive!

I agree, our food labels should have a full list of what the animal was fed....and the label should contain a full list of what fertiliser and chemicals that the plants were fed on that were used to feed the animals.

 

[Chris152]

I agree, our food labels should have a full list of what the animal was fed....and the label should contain a full list of what fertiliser and chemicals that the plants were fed on that were used to feed the animals.

It could be attached to the packaging in the form of a scroll, maybe - tho the scroll could easily be larger than the product itself.

 

[John Brown]

My gut reaction is that it's nothing to worry about.

Not that my gut reaction is important here.

 

[niall Y]

It really is quite a simple business decision.to make. In light of the successful trials of Bovaer, all Arla have to do is start having it added it to the feed of all the dairy cows that supply their company.
They can then sit back and wait to see what happens. Simple, really.

 

[artie]

It really is quite a simple business decision.to make. In light of the successful trials of Bovaer, all Arla have to do is start having it added it to the feed of all the dairy cows that supply their company.
They can then sit back and wait to see what happens. Simple, really.

Do you think they should inform their customers?

 

[stuart little]

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.

Seeing as **** sapiens outnumber cows, surely they produce more methane etc when 'passing wind'.

 

[MikeJhn]

Seeing as **** sapiens outnumber cows, surely they produce more methane etc when 'passing wind'.

From whatever end.

 

[stuart little]

From whatever end.

Why has the biographical name for 'human beans' been censored???????? Seems a bit 'queer!'

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Unless Bovaer is a naturally occurring ingredient found in food sources which combine to make up animal feeds then it is an an additive! No ambiguity there!

It is MILK that you are buying or being used in other products (cheese, yoghurt etc). The FSA are confident there is no additive in the milk.

That food production involves the use of lots of additives, chemicals etc is not disputed. Simply they are not required to disclose them.

As for the wording being very precise. Just because they didn't find any evidence linking the chemical to samples of milk they looked at, that is no guarantee that it can't find it's way into the food chain.

Entirely plausible although the FSA, on balance, think it highly unlikely.

As for not finding any evidence of it not being found in samples tested. I didn't see any golden eagles flying around when I looked out of my windows this morning but it doesn't mean that they don't exist.

As I said - very difficult to absolutely prove a negative - be they eagles or little aliens on Mars.

If the authorities publish test data from a sufficient number of independent peer reviewed extensively tested samples then that would reassure members of the public that it is genuinely safe.

Most may already be reassured or not bovvered. You obviously are - your choice.

I also fail to see why they would NOT label it on milk products...why wouldn't they? Surely, to allay fears of it being secretly added to feed they would publish whether or not it's added to animal food stuff.
I'm not against the chemical being added to the food source of animals if it can be proven to be safe and substantially helps with reducing atmospheric methane but unless it has been rigorously and thoroughly studied then no I'm not in favour.

Getting into conspiracy theory territory - "fears of it being secretly added to feed".

Personally I am unconvinced of the benefits of reducing bovine methane production in this way as I think it is but half the "story".

Like most, I rely upon the integrity of government scientists to do a professional job to the best of their ability. Mostly they get it right. The alternative is to rely upon social media - generally less well informed with a disproportionate share of cranks, fools, and the malicious.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Looks like they found a cure they needed to find a problem for.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Do you think they should inform their customers?

This should be a legal requirement.

 

[John Brown]

Why has the biographical name for 'human beans' been censored???????? Seems a bit 'queer!'

It's because the forum software doesn't understand the distinction between Greek and Latin.

 

[niall Y]

Do you think they should inform their customers?

I do... The point I was making ( with tongue in cheek ) was that they are unlikely to go ahead at the present time, given the reaction from the public. It would simply be a bad for business.