Bovaer works to cut methane emissions, but Ottawa acts like the risks to farmers don’t matter

Bovaer is scientifically promising, but Canada is flying blind on implementation, and that’s a mistake

Interview requests

Canada’s approval of Bovaer, an additive designed to reduce methane emissions from dairy and beef cattle, was hailed as a climate breakthrough earlier in 2024, but we’re rolling it out faster than we’re building the systems to track its real-world impact.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, far stronger than carbon dioxide over the short term, making livestock a major source of Canada’s overall emissions. For many, Bovaer 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 Denmark and Norway, where farmers have paused their use of Bovaer while authorities gather more data. Some Danish farmers have raised concerns about health issues in their herds during Bovaer trials. Norway’s largest dairy cooperative has also suspended pilot use as a precaution while national regulators review the situation.

While no regulator has found a causal link, and the scientific evidence behind Bovaer remains strong, these reports, even if anecdotal, remind us that new technologies can behave differently outside of laboratory conditions.

Bovaer’s ability to cut emissions is genuine. Controlled studies consistently show that Bovaer can reduce methane produced during digestion by 20 to 30 per cent in dairy cattle and up to 45 per cent in beef feedlot animals, depending on dose and diet. A tool that cuts methane by a quarter matters in a sector that produces about 14 per cent of Canada’s methane emissions. Few other tools offer this kind of immediate, measurable impact.

Yet we still lack a clear picture of what is happening in Canada. While any dairy or beef producer can use Bovaer today, we do not know how many actually are. If we are serious about measuring whether it reduces emissions or creates risks, we need to find out how many farmers are actually using it, monitor animal-health outcomes and understand real-world performance across diverse production systems. Canada can’t rely solely on company press releases or scattered anecdotes to judge a tool with national impact.

There is, however, a more fundamental question we should ask: Are we pushing climate additives like Bovaer while ignoring the underlying financial pressures farmers face?

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 and no federal requirement comparable to those placed on oil and gas methane reductions. We have no dedicated funding stream tied to feed-additive adoption and no public reporting structure for on-farm results. And the gap between what governments promise and what farmers see on the ground is growing.

None of this means Bovaer should be abandoned. The active ingredient, 3-NOP, is backed by strong science and the product demonstrably reduces methane when used appropriately. But Canada can’t assume it is immune to real-world challenges such as unexpected herd impacts or the lack of proper monitoring because that kind of complacency leads to policy built on assumptions instead of evidence.

Agricultural innovation isn’t a race. It is a process that has to work on real farms. It should integrate farmers’ realities, protect consumers and strengthen the competitiveness of Canadian food production. The reports from Denmark and Norway are not a warning sign. They are a reality check. Climate technologies only work when the people who adopt them are confident, well-supported and well-informed. 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.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.