The Hidden Story Behind Your Meat: Modern Cattle Feed and a New Additive

A guest post by Dr Don Want

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

By D Want PhD, 17 Dec 24.

In the paradigm of climate change being caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, recently, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition found that farming-related methane emissions are key in the battle against climate change. Amongst other items, this means even cow burps! Yes, cattle burp small amounts of methane which is a normal by-product of their digestion process. A seemingly magically derived figure of 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions was attributed to agriculture, with cattle being responsible for two-thirds of that (1).

It has been conveniently overlooked that extensive herds of wild beasts (ruminants like cattle) lived in the past on most continents, evolving about 50 million years ago. Even 100 million years ago, there was an estimated 20 million tonnes of carbon present just as wild animals inhabiting the earth (2,3,4). In the mid-1800s in North America’s northern plains, in excess of 20 million bison were suggested to have existed (5). The UNEP assessment has many shortcomings, and to ignore the existence of ruminants (like cattle) before mankind developed agriculture is a major flaw.

Another UNEP oversight in the case of grazing cattle is that there is a well-known biogenic cycle where the carbon in the plants consumed is changed by the ruminants (like cattle) into methane which enters the atmosphere, then breaking down to CO2 and water, which are then taken up by the plants. The cycle takes about 12 years. Furthermore there are varieties of methanotrophic bacteria found in soil and water, as well as in the ruminants themselves, which degrade methane. These are natural processes as is the release of methane from termites, wild animals, wildfires, oceans, large bodies of methane below the earth (coal seam gas) and the permafrost as in past climate warming events. Natural methane phenomena have been occurring for thousands of years.

The oil and gas industry output to the atmosphere however, can dwarf these natural cycles. An example was where just 3 leakage plumes in Algeria in January 2020 detected by satellite (6), were estimated as causing a release of 25 tonnes per hour.

Due to fear-based propaganda levelled at our cattle industry in this “climate crisis”, the farmers lately seem to be forced to attention this relatively minor source of methane production. The farmers are faced with administering chemicals to disrupt normal digestive processes which produce methane in the cattle in the form of a feed additive Bovaer-10, or a vaccine, Rumin8. It is an industry that has lost sight of the fact we consume such animals and an optimal animal metabolic health is essential to us for our health after consumption.

So imagine yourself as a cow for a moment. Your digestive system has evolved over millions of years to process grass - fresh, living grass full of nutrients and natural compounds that your body knows exactly how to handle. Your multiple stomachs work together in perfect harmony to break down this fibrous material, extract nutrients, and maintain your health. Furthermore, you’re free to move (wander freely) to more fresh grass ahead. This is the natural way, the way cattle have eaten for thousands of years.

Now imagine, for the last 80 years and with the advent of industrial agriculture, being suddenly switched to a diet of processed foods and mostly dead grass - the cattle equivalent of going from a lifetime of home-cooked meals to surviving solely on fast food. Furthermore, being limited to a confined space with hundreds of other cows. This is essentially what happens in modern feedlots during the "finishing" period, where cattle's diets shift dramatically to contain up to 80% grains and oilseeds like cottonseed. It's comparable to how your own digestive system might revolt when you drastically change your diet while traveling abroad, except these cattle don't get to return to their normal diet after a few weeks.

This dramatic dietary shift is just the beginning of a complex story about modern meat production. The grain and oilseed feeds given to cattle may contain pesticide residues at concentrations up to 100 times higher than what's permitted in grain meant for human consumption (7). Think about that for a moment - we may be feeding cattle food that would be considered too contaminated for human use. These feeds can also introduce high levels of phytoestrogens and other endocrine-disrupting compounds into the cattle's system, simply from the soy and grain basis.

But the story doesn't end with feed. Life in a feedlot means exposure to a whole pharmacy of modern chemicals: antibiotics to prevent diseases that spread easily in crowded conditions, same for anti-parasitic medications, growth additives to speed up weight gain, and routine vaccinations. Recent research has begun to uncover that this isn't just about animal welfare - the meat from pasture-fed cattle affects human metabolism differently than meat from grain-fed cattle (8). It's like comparing the nutritional value of a wild-caught salmon to one raised in a crowded fish farm - the differences go far beyond just what we can see.

While the cattle's digestive systems struggle with these novel unnatural diets, the industry's solution for green-house emissions isn't to return to more natural feeding practices. Instead, they've introduced yet another chemical solution: Bovaer-10, recently endorsed by the Australian Meat and Livestock Association. This product is marketed as an environmental solution, promising to reduce methane emissions from cattle. While this sounds positive on the surface, it adds another layer of complexity to an already complicated chemical cocktail.

The European assessment (9) of Bovaer-10 reveals details that might make consumers pause. The active ingredient, 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP), makes up only 10% of the product. The majority consists of polyethylene glycol (PEG) at 35% and silicic acid at 54%. Notably, information about impurities and the manufacturing process has been redacted from public reports - imagine buying a processed food product where the manufacturer refused to disclose all ingredients or how it was made….., sorry,…. that’s what they already do to humans!

The studies reveal that these chemicals don't politely stay in the digestive tract where they're introduced. Instead, they distribute throughout the animal's body, reaching everything from bone marrow to reproductive organs. In rat studies, 70% of the 3-NOP transforms into carbon dioxide - ironically releasing a greenhouse gas. The studies found evidence of effects on mitochondria (the cellular powerhouses) and potential neurotoxic impacts. While residues in milk were deemed acceptable because they fell below certain limits, genetic testing raised red flags: mutations appeared in bacterial tests, and pre-cancerous effects were observed in long-term rat studies at higher doses.

PEG, the second-largest component of Bovaer-10, deserves its own scrutiny. It's not a single chemical but rather a family of related compounds, and the specific type used in Bovaer-10 remains undisclosed. Research has linked various PEGs to a range of health concerns: they can act as laxatives, increase tissue permeability, cause calcium imbalances, trigger metabolic acidosis, lead to kidney problems, and show toxic effects on cells (10,11,12,13). Some studies even suggest PEGs can selectively assist cancer cell growth (14,15). The assessments totally ignore PEGs, where they end-up or are broken down to.

Perhaps most concerning is what hasn't been considered. Modern feedlot cattle already carry residues from these multiple chemical exposures. Adding Bovaer-10 (or Rumin8 vaccine having the same active ingredient) to this mix is like adding a new ingredient to a complex recipe without testing how it might interact with everything else. None of the approval assessments have examined these potential combined effects.

When questioned about these concerns, Coles supermarkets simply offered reassuring words:

Bovaer has been studied for 15 years and received approval from major food safety organizations including those in the UK and EU (16).

However this response, like the European and UK approval assessments, sidestep a crucial question: what are the long-term effects on consumers? The focus remains firmly on financial benefits and carbon credits rather than comprehensive food safety.

References

1) FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Technical Paper, 2017 https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/i8098en

2) Bar-On YM, Phillips R, Milo R. The biomass distribution on Earth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018 Jun 19;115(25):6506-11.

3) Barnosky AD. Megafauna biomass tradeoff as a driver of Quaternary and future extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008 Aug 12;105(supplement_1):11543-8.

4) Smil V. Harvesting the biosphere: The human impact. Population and development review. 2011 Dec;37(4):613-36.

5) Newport A, How they grazed and why it matters, Beef Magazine, 17 Oct 2018 How they grazed and why it matters

6) Kayrros satellite-based technology www.kayrros.com

7) CUSFR: US Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter E, Part 180, Subpart C, § 180.364, October 31, 2024

8) Williams A, Grass fed beef healthier, more nutritious, Understanding AG https://understandingag.com/nutritional-comparisons-between-grass-fed-beef-and-conventional-grain-fed-beef/ accessed 17 Dec 24

9) EFSA: European Food Safety Authority Report: Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of 3-nitrooxypropanol (Bovaer-10) for ruminants for milk production and reproduction, EFSA J. 2021, 19(11), 6905

10) Gullapalli R, Mazzitelli C, Polyethylene glycols in oral and parenteral formulations—A critical review. International Journal of Pharmaceutics. 2015 Dec 30;496(2):219-39.

11) Herold D, Rodeheaver G, Bellamy W, Fitton L, Bruns D, Edlich R, Toxicity of topical polyethylene glycol. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 1982;65:329–335.

12) Prentice D, Majeed S, Oral toxicity of polyethylene glycol (PEG 200) in monkeys and rats. Toxicol. Lett. 1978;2:119–122.

13) Bruns D, Herold D, Rodeheaver G, Edlich R, Polyethylene glycol intoxication in burn patients. Burns. 1982;9:49–52.

14) Parnaud G, Corpet D, Gamet-Payrastre L. Cytostatic effect of polyethylene glycol on human colonic adenocarcinoma cells. Int. J. Cancer. 2001;92:63–69.

15) Pham Le Khanh H, Nemes D, Rusznyák Á, Ujhelyi Z, Fehér P, Fenyvesi F, Váradi J, Vecsernyés M, Bácskay I. Comparative Investigation of Cellular Effects of Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Derivatives. Polymers (Basel). 2022 Jan 11;14(2):279

16) Coles, emailed response from Coles Customer Care to D.Want, 4 Dec 2024

Don Want recently gained his PhD on Environmental Effects on Health: Ignorance and Undone Science. He and his wife have been researching environmental effects on health for about 38 years since 2 of their 5 young children encountered health problems. This overlapped into vaccines as part of our modern environmental exposures that must be dealt with. Don hopes to finish his first book in early 2025 and do some writing to assist people gain knowledge on environmental health effects.