Editor’s View: Why Bovaer bashers should stop and think
© Tim Scrivener What are we to learn from the online uproar following Arla’s announcement about a trial of the methane-reducing supplement Bovaer?
I would say it shows that solidarity in farming is a mile wide, but only an inch thick.
How has an alarmingly large chunk of our sector, including other dairies who should know better, seen fit to run around like headless chickens condemning this trivial trial?
See also: Arla faces backlash over trials with methane reducing Bovaer
About the author
After all, farmers have for decades been entrusted to use a slew of potent chemicals in the business of food production that are entirely harmless when used correctly.
It is keyboard warriors who have leapt to criticism of this product that have marched themselves onto extremely shaky ground, not the participants in this study.
There are two reasons for that.
First, I think our industry stands to gain from adhering to a general principle that participation in scientific research should only be criticised as an absolute last resort.
We stand on the shoulders of giants who have made large investments and taken significant risks to trial machinery, medicine and many other farming products that at the time were seen as radical and possibly pointless.
Some are now commonplace, some long forgotten.
Any farmer contemplating being a participant in a product trial will now surely be having very reasonable second thoughts over fears about becoming the next victim of a social media pile-on.
That is an attack on the ability of our whole sector to make the same progress as our forebears and continue to see improvements in productivity, animal health and, yes, in some cases, reducing our environmental impact.
Second, on criticism of this product specifically, it is yet another illustration of how little relation the most prominent social media posts on a topic have to actual facts.
Five minutes on X this week would have you believe that being in the same room as Bovaer is going to shrivel up your reproductive organs and unleash Bill Gates’s DNA into your cappuccino.
Ten minutes doing some actual research would reveal that this product has been part of trials for 15 years, has been certified safe by UK regulators, and is on sale in 68 countries across the globe already.
Is it surely to farmer-owned Arla’s credit that, despite the weight of existing evidence behind the product, it is proceeding so cautiously, and is far from the first milk processor to dabble with methane inhibitors.
Should you infer from all of this that I want to shut down debate on this product altogether and mindlessly prod you into accepting its use?
Of course not – quite the opposite. In fact, it is those who shoot from the hip on social media who stifle sensible debate.
Those who pause and reflect before posting are left in the dust of the shriekers who have already moved on to the next confected controversy.
It’s perfectly fine to question the rationale behind whether cows need to contribute to carbon reduction, the need for this product or method specifically, what impact it will have on cow productivity, and whether it will drive more cows indoors.
Just remember there isn’t often much overlap between what’s trending and what’s true.