Bovaer is a classic example of isolationist & selective testing designed to approve a specific issue. Bovaer (3-NOP) is a chemical compound toxic to humans (farmers need to be fully suited and wear Personal Protective Equipment incl. glasses & mask). The 3-NOP feed additive comes with a stark warning: It’s metabolite NOPA can cause infertility!But don’t worry, “all of your dairy products will not cause infertility, because 3NOP is a miracle drug that is easily digested with our digestive booster chemical NAD⁺.”Don’t mind our European application for the feed additive was suspended 3 times! …Just don’t mind.

Just a minder, this can’t be a conspiracy theory when it’s their very own research we are looking at!

Let’s dive into this experimental change, which likely affects the products you eat daily!

Diving into the 3-NOP Bovaer feed additive study, here is the most concerning IMO

I have to inform you first; if I make just 1 wrong statement, they could sue the living daylight out of me. So this is not to make a definitive statement but to voice a personal concern, based on the approved EFSA Bovaer study, from which I know there is great concern from literally The Foundation Of Civilization, the farmers.This is a top-down thing that is pulled down over the heads of farmers, and when it is the seller that makes the study the EFSA approves, farmers & consumers have every right to be concerned.

History proves it is very valid to be skeptical of a seller’s statements & science when the company stands to be a billion-dollar evaluated company almost from the moment it’s approved. It is very much out of concern for the foundational animal because the cow contributes the most to the Western diet. A huge proportion of our diet is impacted by dairy products or meat form cows. Milk is consumed by 6 billion people globally.

So, I read the entire 32-page (35 with the fill) study and I’m concerned. I could talk about it technically, but it would be a science review, where I would be afraid to make statements.

I am not going to do that, as it would get dry. What I am going to do; is talk about something else entirely (for a moment).

We are going to talk about alcohol!

Not just the one you drink to have fun, but different kinds of alcohol as well.

Methan(ol)

Ethan(ol)

Propan(ol)

etc.

All fit under the group label Alcoh(ol). They are characterized by an (-OH) group in the molecule structure.

Note: Some alcohols are so toxic to organisms (living things) that it kills everything. Think of the sanitizers used under Covid.

Forget all about 3-nitrooxypropan(ol) (3-NOP), I don’t know what that is, I’m not a chemist, ask your school physics teacher or AI.

That was already way to much science talk.. For now….

How alcohol behaves in the body

So, did you know, that when you get absolutely shit-faced drunk, your piss will contain alcohol! Not all the alcohol gets broken down in your stomach.

In fact, you can trace alcohol in your piss up to 6-12 hours after drinking.

Imagine if we did a study where we got a goat drunk, waited 7h & 59 minutes and took the first sample of the goat milk. Then we took some samples at 12h, 16h , 24h & 48 hours as well after getting the goat smacked on alcohol.

Likely scenario, the goat milk will probably only contain a slight residue of the alcohol and it would be minimal, unconcerning and in some samples probably completely gone.

Question: What time samples do you think are significantly represented in the actual Bovaer study?

Now, a farmer’s cow is fed twice daily. Rule of thumb, every 12 hours.

If the cow had a whiskey on the side to every meal every 12 hours, would it not be pointless to test the cow’s piss 16h, 24h & 48 hours after? Since there is no 16 hours after 1 dose in a real-world example?

Sorry, I forgot, we were talking about goat milk, not cow piss.

I don’t know if a goat is like a cow, but after feeding, cows typically feel the need to be milked as their milk production ramps up, and their udder pressure increases. In dairy farms (both traditional and robotic), the busiest milking times tend to follow this pattern: 2-3 hours after feeding.

Concerning findings in the study

But first, this is a Need-to-know: When analysing the residue; Bovaer uses Limit Of Quantification (LOQ) at different levels for different studies. I presume that if the 3-NOP residue is below the set limit (LOQ), it’s insignificant. How they came to that conclusion I don’t know, but this is the highest LOQ (21 and 8 μg 3-NOP eq/kg in tissues and milk, respectively) I found in the study.+ The scientific study is done by adding a (¹⁴C) = radioactive carbon isotope to the 3-NOP molecule for tracking the molecule through the body.

Now, the actual study wasn’t too generous about study samples in the first 3 hours on cows specifically, but let me copy-paste some findings in the study (we will continue our unrelated imaginary story after).

In the urine collected from 0 to 2 h of a rat, radioactivity was 13.7% of the applied dose, being themajor urinary metabolites 3-HPA followed by NOPA, and the glucuronide of 3-NOP, corresponding to58%, 20% and 11% of the urine radioactivity, respectively.

NOPA is a breakdown compound of 3-NOP. The technical name: 3-nitrooxypropionic acid (NOPA).

Based on the results of a 10-day range finding study, 47 groups of 10 male and 10 female Wistar Han rats were exposed by oral gavage to 3-NOP. All females at 500 mg/kg bw showed evidence of mating but none of the females became pregnant.

^That should be 47×10 females = out of 470 female rats “none of the females became pregnant, but showed signs of mating”

Official statement: Since I don’t want to slander this probably billion-dollar company making this study, (psst: you should know I’m not suicidal), I am going to give you the missing context. 500 mg/kg is 5x the max recommendation level of 3-NOP.

However, we don’t have a study (I’m aware of) of the recommended max level of 3-NOP for 5 times as long duration of this rat study. Would it have been the same result or different? I don’t now. May be, maybe not.

Let’s continue with interesting study findings.

One and 3 h after dosing, more than 80% of the radioactivity in the stomach content corresponded to the intact compound

In the blood 1 h after dosing, NOPA was the main compund, followed by 3-HPA. At 2 h and 3 h afterdosing, 3-HPA was the major metabolite, followed by NOPA.

Very interesting, “80% corresponded to the intact compound” however, it is also from the rat study…

In males(rats), the highest mean concentration of total radioactivity was found in the liver, kidneys, lungs and pancreas (655, 636, 494 and 471 μg 3-NOP-eq/g, respectively). All other tissues had values close to or lower than plasma at 1 h after dosing, 467 μg 3-NOP-eq/mL. In females, the C_max TR was found in the kidneys and liver with values of 865 and 622 μg 3-NOP-eq/g, respectively. All other tissues had values close to or lower than plasma at 1 h after dosing, 583 μg 3-NOP-eq/mL.

“Just give us the cow study already” – okay okay, let´s go:

3.2.2. Residue studies: Two studies (dose-range finding study and tolerance study) conducted in dairy cows (for details see Section 3.2.4) reported data on NOPA residues in milk and tissues. NOPA was determined in both studies by an internally validated liquid (LC–MS/MS) analytical method.

Let’s hear the European Food Safety Authority’s FEEDAP panel comment on this:

The dose-range finding study showed some weaknesses: only few animals were used (16 cows in total), lack of confirmation of the target concentration of additive in the feed linked to a possible tendency of the additive to decrease over the time, limited ability of the additive to homogeneously distributed in feed.30 Another limitation consists in the unexpectedly high differences of NOPA concentration between morning and afternoon milking.31 The FEEDAP Panel was therefore not in a position to use the data of the dose-range finding study for an assessment of consumer exposure to NOPA.

Reasonable question: Why were there “unexpectedly high differences of NOPA concentration between morning and afternoon milking“, well, I can’t find an answer to that on the same page or section.

However, the aspiring farmer right here sitting behind the screen; found this (I’m not joking) on one of the very last pages of a 32-page study. Some will probably say hiding all-the-way down there, others will say saving the best for last (like this blog post).

3.2.4.2 Tolerance studies: A tolerance study was carried out with 80 Holstein Friesian dairy cows. (Specifications cut out). Regarding the experimental design, cows were blocked according to milk yield recorded during the pre-treatment period3.3.3. Long-term studies in animals: (page 30) concentrates and acomplementary feed, was provided once daily (after the morning milking)

Now don’t you dare assume that completely unrelated story (with facts: 1. busiest milking hour is 2-3 hours after feed & 2. 6-12 hours after getting shit-faced on alcohol, you can no longer trace alcohol in your piss. 3. Cows eat roughly every 12 hours) has anything to do with this study! And down dwell on the fact that after eating, the cow had an entire night to sleep it off and recover, before the next feed cycle roughly 12 hours after the first.

Official statement: If the above copy-pasted of the study is the reason why “unexpectedly high differences of NOPA concentration between morning and afternoon milking” were recorded, I don’t know. Perhaps a Mode-of-method, perhaps a Standard-Operational-Tactic. All we know is that “The FEEDAP Panel was therefore not in a position to use the data“.

Bovaer safety for cows & milk

3.2.2. Residue studies: In the tolerance study, four groups of 20 cows each were fed diets containing 0, 80, 100 and 200 mg 3-NOP/kg feed DM (corresponding to 0.8×, 1× and 2× the maximum proposed use level), respectively, for 56 days. All cows were milked twice daily, however, only morning milk was collected for further milk analysis. NOPA was determined 6 days before study start and then at different times during the experiment (SD 2, 8, 15, 22, 29, 36, 43, 50 and 56 days). Eight pre-selected animals per group were slaughtered and samples of liver, kidneys, muscle and fat were taken for further NOPA analysis. From the 17 cows of the low use level group (80 mg 3-NOP/kg feed DM), for which milk samples were analysed for NOPA, milk of 15 cows never exceeded 1 μg/kg, only two cows showed in a total of 5 samples concentrations between 1.11 and 2.51 μg/kg (median 1.74). One hundred and thirty-one milk samples out of 136 were below 1 μg/kg. Milk NOPA appeared higher in the high use level group (100 mg 3-NOP/kg feed DM) compared to the low use level group. From a total of 19 cows representing 152 samples, 136 samples never exceed the LOQ. Twelve cows were always below that value. Milk with NOPA above 1 μg/kg came from 7 cows (median 1.52).

The highest individual NOPA concentration within the high use level group was 3.66 μg/kg milk. This value was used for the worst-case exposure calculation to NOPA residues in milk.

Worst cases? Only using morning milk. Wonder why?

Max recommended use: 152 samples, 16 milk samples contained NOPA = 10,5% (Still only morning milk, presumably before feed & with likely with approximately 12 hours of rest)

What do you think the real world milk level of NOPA would be, if cows are predominantly milked 2-3 hours after feed?

Would the level of NOPA in milk in the first 2-3 hours post feed be concerning to human’s ability to have children?

How about animal welfare impach? If all cows probably should be forced to hold their milk during max pressure and best case scenario should only be milked right before next feed? What does the stress level do to animal welfare if farmers start to milk their cows for the least amount of NOPA levels possible in the Milk?Imagine if you were forced to not pie on a night out drinking, because you were first allowed to let it out the next day?

3.2.1.2 Ruminants. In vivo(live animal) studies: In a second experiment, a lactating goat was pre-dosed on five days by gavage with non-labelled 3-NOP followed by administration on two days of (3-¹⁴C)-3-NOP by gavage at daily doses of 3.28 mg/kg bw per day, corresponding to 101.8 mg/kg DM. From the radioactivity totally applied, 0.71% were excreted via faeces, 1.97% via urine and 4.48% via milk while 8.99% remained in the total edible tissues and 14.87% in the intestinal tract content. The total radioactivity excreted amounted to 7.18% and total recovery at sacrifice was 31.04%.

The plasma concentration of nitrite and nitrate measured at t = 0 was 2.2 μmol/L and increased to levels in the range of 9.0–68.4 μmol/L between 0.5 h and 4 h post-dose.

Worth noticing: In plasma=blood concentration we find the measure in μmol/L and not μg 3-NOP-equivalents/kg, so let’s get AI to convert the μmol/L to μg 3-NOP-equivalents/kg since LOQ is probably the same for a goat – LOQ (21 and 8 μg 3-NOP eq/kg in tissues and milk, respectively)

What is μmol ChatGTP?: μmol stands for micromole, a unit of measurement in chemistry. It’s used to express the amount of a substance, specifically, the number of molecules or atoms present in a sample. (First time I have found them using this measure instead of the usual measure, wonder why)

Chat GPT’s answer for conversion:

Convert concentrations:  

• 2.2 μmol/L → μg/kg:2.2×121.09=266.4 μg/kg2.2 times 121.09 = 266.4 , mu g/kg2.2×121.09=266.4μg/kg

• 9.0 μmol/L → μg/kg:9.0×121.09=1089.8 μg/kg9.0 times 121.09 = 1089.8 , mu g/kg9.0×121.09=1089.8μg/kg

• 68.4 μmol/L → μg/kg:68.4×121.09=8279.5 μg/kg68.4 times 121.09 = 8279.5 , mu g/kg68.4×121.09=8279.5μg/kg

Final result:  

• Initial concentration: 266.4 μg 3-NOP-equivalents/kg

• Post-dose range: 1089.8–8279.5 μg 3-NOP-equivalents/kg (Between 0.5h & 4h post dose)

NOW ISN’T THAT INTERESTING?!?!

Bovaer Safety Study Highlights

I can’t even think of a way to pack these quotes in. At least not in a way that doesn’t land me in trouble, so you just get them raw copy-paste:

3.2.4.2 Tolerance studies: “Two cows had to be euthanised prematurely due to reduced feed intake and lethargy”

Yes, euthanized prematurely = killed prematurely.

3.2.3.4 Subchronic toxicity studies: “One female dog treated with 300 mg 3-NOP/kg bw per day was sacrificed after 3 weeks of dosing, following a sudden onset of severe clinical signs (including abnormal gait, lethargy, tremors and repetitive epileptic seizures). In this animal, NOPA plasma levels after dosing was high and very slowly decreased. The reason was unknown. According to the authors of the study, epilepsy is known to occur spontaneously in Beagle dogs.”

NOPA in plasma=bloodstream

3.2.5. Safety for the consumer: “The FEEDAP Panel notes that the genotoxicity of 3-NOP cannot be ruled out and that pre-neoplastic lesions and tumours observed in the 2-year carcinogenicity study with 3-NOP are biologically relevant.” & “In addition, the metabolite NOPA, detected at very low concentration in milk”

^ Now I wonder: Was it the Milk from the morning milk before feed? You know, those samples where the cows had approximately 12 hours to recover?

Does the Methane reduction even work long-term?

Well well well, let’s look at another study from 2008:

In the last two decades, research programs in Europe, Oceania and North America have explored a variety of approaches to redirecting reducing equivalents towards other reductive substrates as a means of decreasing methane production in ruminants. (Cows, goats etc.)

Some approaches such as vaccination, biocontrols, chemical inhibitors directly target methanogens. Other approaches, such as defaunation, diet manipulations including various plant extracts or organic acids

Study: Redirecting rumen fermentation to reduce methanogenesis. Australian journal of experimental agriculture, 48(2): 7-13 (2008) So, it has been researched before including diet modifications and it found that:

Although methane production can be inhibited for short periods, the ecology of the system is such that it frequently reverts back to initial levels of methane production though a variety of adaptive mechanisms.

So, even with the methane reduction of Bovaer 3-NOP with an effect of 20% reduction according to the Bovaer study that EFSA approved, the above research paper indicates that the cow’s rumen (part of the stomach) reverts back over time. What does this mean for Bovaer & methane reduction? Well, like any drug taken repeatedly, you would need more and more of it to get the same effect = More Sale of Bovaer – ‘Ka-Ching’$$$! Miracle Money Drug! Just don’t mind your balls or women’s egg stock and your ability to have children. That is just speculation. The drug is approved!

My recommendations if I were to guide an independent research lab on the Bovaer feed additive & a MUST

The focus should be on the first 4 hours after feeding since the busiest milking hours are 2-3 hours after feed. No milk sample before feeding is a necessary know-how, especially not after a night of rest and rejuvenation. We need more long-term studies; at least a year or better yet, multiple years. The oldest cow lived to be 48 years old just saying. Imagine eating Bovaer feed twice a day, day-in-day-out for just for 5 years straight. I would be nice to know the long-term effect on the cow, the meat & the milk! As well as soil health from all the piss and shit. Supposedly, the aim of Bovaer feed additive is to make cows fart less, I would like to study if the cow burps more on Bovaer. As well as the breathed-out CO₂ measure. Do Bovaer cows have a higher CO₂ concentration in their breath than non-bovaer cows? – Because the Methane CH₄ contains a (C) carbon atom, so if the CH₄ molecule gets broken up, does the cow breathe out more CO₂? Because the (C)arbon atom doesn’t just disappear. Adding a (¹⁴C) = radioactive carbon isotope to the 3-NOP molecule for tracking is nice, but I would like to combine ¹⁴C labeling with stable isotope techniques (like ¹⁵N) to better trace the nitrogen side of the reaction, providing a fuller picture of nitrogen and carbon flows. This is a MUST if I guide an independent research lab! Because it’s the freaking nitrogen part of the equation my balls are worried about. I don’t have kids yet! Also: Can the scientists describe the negative feedback system in which the process (Bovaer) is interfering with is embedded? We need to know, but isolation science doesn’t fully account for the complex system. The cow’s rumen is a complex ecosystem where microbes (like bacteria and protozoa) break down fiber from plants into nutrients the cow can use. This delicate balance is essential for digestion and overall health — but certain feed additives easily disrupt it. The stability of Bovaer premix with feed: It’s not a real-world example when the study is done in a 25-degree Celsius (77°F) storage facility. In reality, the premix is not stored at 25°C at (50% Relative Humidity), but probably in a dairy barn with mild or no insulation at all and is not heated to 25°C all year around. In a real-world example, it will probably follow the outside temperature during the day and as well at night but will likely be 5-10°C higher than outside. Come on guys, it has to be at close to a real-world example and not in a controlled lab.

My understanding of what isolation science exclude

Isolation science looks at a single molecule and how another molecule affects that molecule. It rests on isolation theory. If we only have these 2 molecules, theory says that they will interact with each other, form a new molecule or break apart and these will be the leftover molecules. But in reality, these are not the only molecules present. These molecules are a part of a complex system, and a chain reaction occurs. But in isolation science, you don’t look at the complex system, the natural chain reaction or the molecules overall role as part of that system. It disregards the complexity of a system of organisms. It doesn’t look at how the change affects the entire system or how the system overall deal with the change. You can make the cow fart less, but if you don’t look at if the cow burps more, how can you be sure the overall output is a net positive? A cow is part of a very special group of animals, with the cow being the most foundational animal for the thriving of human civilization. The cow can eat grass and plants, and turn it into very large quantities of meat & milk. We use the milk to a very large extent in a variety of ways. Milk, butter, cooking cream used in A LOT of meals, yogurt, cheese, protein powder, and much more. The products that comes from a cow are foundational in the Western civilization’s diet. Whether you talk breakfast, lunch, dinner or dessert. It is no wonder the cow is considered sacred in Hinduism, because you can not find an animal that fit’s the description “A gift from god” better than a cow. Science disregards the possibility of an intelligent creator, that has optimized all the different systems in a cow from the gut biome, the entire digestive system, to the protein and muscle uptake of nutrients from the bloodstream system. Scientists haven’t even cracked the code of 98% of the content in DNA. But we know how 2 molecules react when they are isolated, and if we only look at what we want to look at, we can disregard the complexity and interconnectedness of the entire system that we can’t even fully explain. Science disregards the marvelous interconnectedness of it all, and breaks it down to the smallest building blocks. Changing the smallest building blocks in a vast interconnected organic system follows this logic it seems: If it functions in theory, it functions in reality – if we change this building block right here, the rest of the system will probably be alright. Today we have ultra-processed foods, with isolationist science applied = safe for consumption. How does your system respond to ultra-processed foods? Well, have you noticed a rise in chronic illnesses, diabetes and heart deceases? Probably the most “advanced” society in isolationist science, is also the sickest. 60% of American adults now live with at least one chronic condition; 42% have more than one. ^That is more test subjects than any other science experiment in history combined! But when the experiment isn’t done in an environment-controlled lab where we can isolate variables, we are missing the forest for the trees, so it doesn’t count. (Seems like this is what is going on). ‘In science we do not rely on common sense, because it jumps to conclusions.’ We can almost hear them say. We can’t conclude that the Armish people are healthier than us because they eat real food and not hyper-processed foods. Because they are also more physically active and are to a large extend unvaccinated, as well as other variables. We can’t conclude it’s the fuel that our bodies get’s the energy from that is the problem-factor when comparing Armish people to average Americans. “Trust the science” – (from the seller going to make billions)

Is the Bovaer-made study EFSA trustworthy?

Well, their once-stated limit of quantification which I interpret at the limit of significance (since if it’s below, it’s deemed insignificant) is LOQ (21 and 8 μg 3-NOP eq/kg in tissues and milk, respectively), but in the study, there are a different unit of measurement in a lot of cases. μg/kg bodyweight μg/kg μg/g μg/mL ( milliliter) ng/mL μmol/L nmol/g There is obviously a difference if you measure in liquid(blood/milk etc.) or non-liquid(muscle, tissue etc.) as well as what measuring tool is being used. However, if for example there is 21% of a toxic chemical in a gram or milliliter, it’s at a level where “oh well, it’s less than a gram or mL.” But if it’s 21% of a kilo, it’s 210 grams of a toxic chemical per kilo. A cow eats 6 milligrams/kg or around 30 grams/cow because it’s a toxic chemical. If you instead say 6 gram/kg it’s 3,6 kg of toxic feed out of a daily feed intake of around 22 kg. That will amount to 16.36% = most likely dead cow. Whereas 30 grams out of 22 kg feed is 0.136% = survivable. So these units of measure can make or break the approval of a probably billion-dollar company. And the consequence of lying is: “Oh we are sorry about that, our scientists mistakenly wrote the wrong number/measure – 35 pages, maybe around 800 test samples, mistakes happens. But does a mistake happen on purpose? Well, why are there so many different measuring units? Why aren’t the numbers converted to one unit? Imagine if you made a billion dollars for making a small mistake that you can always blame on human error instead of intentional. Why is the vast majority of tests not done in the first 2-3 hours after feed which is the busiest milking hours? Why are there even 16h, 24h, and 48 hours post-feed tests?! No such thing is a real-world scenario once approved! Why was the morning milk after approximately 12 hours of rest and right before the next dose used in tests? Do you think it’s trustworthy? Well, that depends on what you have learned from recent history.What you know about corporate power & influence on the governmental systems around the world.To what degree do you estimate billion-dollar corporations work in the gray zone of law to make billions on top of billions on top of billions?It seems politicians go along to get along, without basic critical thinking of opportunistic money-loving corporations. I can’t advise you on corporations’ influence on public guidelines, this is something you must figure out on your own. Because there is too much unrelated to farmers.My recommendation, find a fellow citizens covering this. Corporate coverage of corporate power in a text-on-screen format can get sued if they step out of line. It’s about time you put on the headphones and listen to everyday people. I’m sure they do their best to be as accurate as possible. It isn’t like the TV & Radio media never has gotten anything wrong. Find someone with hundreds of thousands or millions of followers, these people have a high sense of responsibility not to mislead their followers. If they did mislead their listeners, they probably would not have so many followers. Sure, no one gets everything right 100% of the time but neither does TV(legacy) media – have you seen the statistic viewership of TV media plummeting recently and an increase in Social Media citizens-to-citizens news (now 71% of UK adults)? What do you think the reason for that is? Maybe because of SBF_FTX, Enron, Theranos, Jeffry Epstein, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, USAID along with a long list of companies that still operate today that I won’t mention, but hey, look up Magnates Media on YouTube and take a peak into the world of Giant Corporation dirty tactics. What do you think you will find if you looked up the biggest banks next? Especially, but not limited to those who caused the financial crisis or 08 and got a golden handshake on their way out the door. No one get’s arrested for “totally innocent mistakes”. But, if the people you are listening to don’t show their sources like I just did, it is a good habit of fact-checking yourself or cross validate from different sources covering the same topic. AI can be a great helper but put the greatest weight on primary sources. As you can see from the above walk-through of the science, doing your own fact check is super important for being an informed consumer, in a world where producers produce the science and influence public guidelines which shapes the world you live in. Bovaer is approved, nonetheless.“Unsurprisingly” – Coming from someone with extensive knowledge of corporate influence on society… It’s not that I’m anti-human modification, look at wild bananas, but it has to be done with extreme care & attention to the impact at large. It can not & should NEVER be done in a hurry! You might say “well, sometimes the situation requires a hurry” Sure, but we can’t drop or rush it through 3rd party examination of the supposed fix. Give it to all the 3rd party examinators if it’s in a hurry, and give them government support as well. The incentives should be both speed & safety scrutiny. Wait for the first 3 evaluations before proceeding. So we don’t end up with a vaccine that damages the reputation of all other vaccines. The amount of damage the Covid-19 vaccine has done to public trust in all vaccines is absolutely devastating for science. Just like what is happening to the farmers, mainstream media doesn’t cover this. But I can tell you this much, from the citizen journalists out there on YouTube, truly independent news presses (the ones who don’t print newspapers but online papers), as well as healthcare & medical online advisors who have the diplomas, but find it more interesting to read the latest science in the healthcare field and publish their findings to their audiences to make people more healthy instead of treating the unhealthy. You know the people who repeat the phrase “prevention is better than a cure” and the people who have rightly realized we need a cultural shift towards healthier living instead of more drugs. Yes, those people, I would say it’s much easier to find someone who doesn’t support the Covid-19 vaccine, than to find people who still support it. If you want to find The People’s opinion, look at those who are leading the field & are self-employed professionals. I bet it would feel like finding a nail in a haystack if you want to find people who still support the Covid-19 vaccine from these professionals. Post it in the comments if you do find it from someone like this, I will give you 100$ (posting the same link as another comment doesn’t count & the support statement of the Covid-19 vaccine has to be made in 2024 or after & and it’s doesn’t count if the same person has changed his/her opinion after the statement, obviously).

As for the purely farmer-related history:

rBST is a synthetic version of a naturally occurring hormone in cows. This hormone helps regulate growth and milk production. In the 1990s, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of rBST to increase milk production in dairy cows. The idea was that farmers could produce more milk with fewer cows, which could potentially reduce costs and make milk more affordable. However, the use of rBST became controversial for several reasons:

 

• Animal Welfare Concerns: Studies suggested that cows treated with rBST were more likely to suffer from health problems like mastitis (udder infections), lameness, and reproductive issues.

• Human Health Concerns: While the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and World Health Organization (WHO) deemed rBST milk safe for human consumption, critics worried about potential health risks, such as increased levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), which is linked to certain cancers in high concentrations.

rBST has not been allowed since at least 2000 on the market in Canada, or since 1990 in the European Union (EU). Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Argentina have also banned the use of rBST. The panel on rbST’s effects on animal health, however, concluded that rbST use causes “an increased risk of mastitis of up to 25%, of infertility by 18%, and of lameness by up to 50%. These increased risks and overall reduced body condition lead to a 20-25% increased risk of culling from the herd.” – Government of Canada Publications The United States does not require companies to label the use of rBST in their products, although it was banned in the European Union in 1990. Genetically Modified Cows (for Healthier Milk)

 

• Approved (Experimental): Some GM cows produced milk without certain allergens.

• Abandoned/Banned: Regulatory hurdles and public backlash limited large-scale adoption.

🐖 Pigs)

Genetically Modified Pigs (“Enviropig”)

 

• Approved (Conditionally): Canada (1999) — genetically modified to digest phosphorus more efficiently, reducing environmental pollution.

• Withdrawn: Developers ended the program in 2012 due to regulatory challenges and lack of public acceptance.

As well as cloning for both pigs & cows + some more.

Does DSM-Firmenich’s board of directors (the company making Bovaer) participate in Word Economic Forum (WEF)?

YES! Feike Sijbesma, former CEO and Chairman of DSM, served on the WEF’s Board of Trustees. e Dimitri de Vreeze, current CEO of dsm-firmenich, has been an Agenda Contributor to the WEF. If you don’t know what WEF is, please look it up and see what fellow citizens say about it. They shape our world to a large extent, but nobody voted for them. Here is what DSM-Firmenich’s also make:

Independent highly educated people’s comments:

Jørn Erri is one of Denmark’s leading experts on cows. At 83 years old, he is still an active veterinarian and widely recognized as an absolute authority on cattle. “Bovaer is completely insane. It is obviously wrong to interfere with the cow’s system. The cow is unique in that she only indirectly lives off what she eats. She lives off the bacteria that her rumen can produce for her. When you start disrupting those processes, in my opinion, you are creating disasters,” says Jørn Erri. “It’s hard to describe how insane this is” Bret Weinstein on the Dark Horse Podcast (Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying both PhDs in Biology) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afAKqjpEtTg

Is methane reduction even worth the risk of altering a foundational food source animal?

Methane (CH₄) is a potent greenhouse gas, but it constitutes a relatively small fraction of Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2023, its concentration reached approximately 1,931 parts per billion (ppb), or 1.931 parts per million (ppm). carbonbrief.org Given that the atmosphere is composed of 1,000,000 ppm, methane accounts for about 0.0001931% of the atmospheric composition.

in response to the addition of 3-NOP to the diet, showing a linear dose-response relationship. When used at 100 mg 3-NOP/kg DMI, the CH₄ decreased by about 20%.

So the MAX Bovaer recommended doses, reduced Methane (CH₄) with 20%. Methane which accounts for about 0.0001931% of the atmospheric composition, does NOT come from cows alone.

🌍 Sources of Atmospheric Methane (CH₄):

Natural Sources (~40%):

 

• Wetlands: Microbial breakdown of organic material(leafs, dead plants etc.) in waterlogged soils.

• Volcanic Activity: Some volcanoes release methane during eruptions.

• Termites: Methane from gut microbes during digestion.

• Oceans & Freshwater: Methane from sediments and microbial activity.

• Wildfires & Geological Seeps: Methane from burning vegetation or escaping from underground reservoirs.

Human-Made Sources (~60%):

 

• Livestock Digestion & Manure: Methane from ruminant animals and waste.

• Rice Paddies: Flooded fields create methane-producing microbes.

• Landfills & Waste Management: Organic waste decomposing without oxygen.

• Fossil Fuels: Leaks from oil, gas, and coal mining.

Let’s see how much Methane in the atmosphere we save by adding Bovaer: Let’s calculate it step by step!

 

• Total atmospheric methane: ~0.0001931%

• Natural sources (40%) → Not affected by cow reductions.

• Human-made sources (60%) → Includes livestock emissions.

If we only consider the human-made portion: 0.0001931%×0.6 = 0.00011586% Then, if we cut 20% of livestock emissions (which are a big part of that human-made 60% — around 33% of total methane comes from livestock):0.00011586%×0.33×0.2 = 0.0000076% So, a 20% reduction in methane from cows would lower the atmosphere’s methane concentration by approximately: 0.00000763956% I suppose that is Best Case Scenario if all cows in the world eat Bovaer, otherwise it would be significantly less.

3.1.5. Conditions of use The additive is intended to be used in feed for female ruminants (for milk production and reproduction)

So are beef cows & males excluded? Is it because there is leftover NOPA in the meat? I’m sure they will not advertise this if so. As of 2024, the European Union (EU) has an estimated population of approximately 449 million people, accounting for about 5.8% of the global population. What is 5.8% of 0.0000076% you ask? Let’s calculate it:0.0000076%×0.058 = 0.00000044%% America is only 360mil people (without illegal immigrants), but you can double the above number if you like. It’s still a 0-point 6×0 percent.

Do you think that saving is worth the risk?

Here is some suggestions that almost certainly would make a much bigger change if implemented:

Video Walkthrough of the study papers, independent experts’ opinion & exposing who is behind

Bovaer’s approved research paper