Ottawa wants fewer cow farts—but farmers aren’t blowing hot air
Canada’s approval of Bovaer earlier in 2024 was hailed as a climate breakthrough. The additive—designed to reduce methane emissions from dairy and beef cattle—was endorsed by Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) after extensive review. For many, it symbolized progress: a clean, simple intervention promising climate benefits without compromising productivity.
But good intentions do not exempt us from vigilance. Over the past few weeks, troubling reports have emerged from parts of Europe. Danish farmers have paused the use of Bovaer after noticing unexplained health issues among their herds. Norway’s largest dairy cooperative has temporarily suspended pilot usage, citing precaution while national authorities investigate. No regulator has established a causal link, and to be clear, the science behind Bovaer remains strong. But the existence of such incidents—however anecdotal—reminds us that real farms are not controlled environments. Biology is rarely linear, and the adoption of new technologies in agriculture often exposes conditions unexpected in laboratory trials.
READ: Cow farts and consumer trust: Is Canada sacrificing trust for climate optics?
If we separate the science from the headlines, Bovaer’s mitigation potential is genuine. Controlled studies consistently show that Bovaer can reduce enteric methane emissions by 20% to 30% in dairy cattle, and up to 45% in beef feedlot animals, depending on dose and diet. These reductions are far greater than what most producers can achieve through management changes alone. For a sector responsible for roughly 14% of Canada’s total methane emissions, a tool capable of cutting emissions by a quarter is not trivial. In fact, few other agricultural interventions offer this kind of immediate, measurable impact.
Yet Canada’s picture remains more opaque than it should be. While any dairy or beef producer can use Bovaer today, we do not know how many actually are. Adoption appears minimal, but reliable national data simply do not exist. If we are serious about quantifying environmental benefits—or potential risks—we need to track uptake, monitor animal-health outcomes, and understand real-world performance across diverse production systems. Canada cannot rely on supplier press releases or scattered farmer anecdotes to assess a technology with national implications.
There is, however, a more fundamental question we should ask: Are we introducing climate-focused additives faster than we are improving the baseline economics of Canadian livestock farming?
The Bovaer story also reveals something deeper about the state of agricultural innovation in Canada. Unlike Europe, we have no national methane-reduction mandate for livestock, no dedicated funding stream tied to feed-additive adoption, and no public reporting structure for on-farm results. Approvals have moved forward, but the implementation ecosystem remains largely theoretical. The gap between policy aspiration and practical deployment is widening.
None of this means Bovaer should be abandoned. Far from it. The science behind 3-NOP is strong, and the product demonstrably reduces methane when used appropriately. But enthusiasm must be matched with transparency and caution. Ignoring farmer experiences in other countries would be irresponsible. Pretending Canada is immune to such challenges would be worse.
Agricultural innovation should never be a race. It should be a disciplined, evidence-driven process that integrates farmers’ realities, protects consumers, and strengthens the competitiveness of Canadian food production. The recent reports from Europe are not an indictment—they are a reminder. Climate technologies only work when the people who adopt them are confident, well-supported, and well-informed.
READ: Sizing up climate change
A lack of transparency surrounding the use of 3-NOP and Bovaer will only fuel greater skepticism—both within the industry and among consumers.
Canada now has an opportunity. Instead of rushing toward symbolic wins, we should invest in monitoring, data collection, and communication. We should listen to farmers—not lecture them. And above all, we should anchor every climate intervention in the same principle that guides good food policy: innovation should help producers thrive, not simply help governments hit targets.
