Evaluating the Harmful Effects of Bovaer® versus Its Claimed Methane Reduction Benefits and Debunking the CO2-Driven Global Warming Narrative

Date: June 19, 2025 By Anders Brunstad, INRI Org, anders.o.brunstad@gmail.com

Abstract

Bovaer® (3-nitrooxypropanol, 3-NOP), a feed additive promoted under Agenda 2030 to

reduce livestock methane emissions, is claimed to cut dairy cow methane by 20–30%.

However, its potential harms, including propylene glycol (PG)-induced acidosis and pH

disruption, may outweigh benefits, particularly in non-eco farming systems using

glyphosate-treated feed, potentially enhanced with graphene oxide (GO) and carbon

nanotubes (CNTs), and exposed to 5G electromagnetic radiation (EMR). Using the pH

Miracle framework (interstitial fluid pH <7.0 harmful, <6.5 significant, <6.0 extreme), this

paper compares non-eco systems (TINE dairy cows, Norwegian salmon) to eco systems

(Røros cows, Polish trout), assessing Bovaer’s impacts on health, mortality, and human

consumers. The New Zealand EPA Science Memorandum (APP204100) notes 16.82%

Bovaer metabolites in milk, raising concerns. Part 2 falsifies the CO2-driven global

warming narrative using Bradford Hill criteria, validating solar magnetism, galactic cosmic

rays (GCRs), and Henry’s Law as climate drivers, with data from Beck, Zharkova,

Svensmark, and NASA. The paper concludes that Bovaer’s harms in non-eco systems

outweigh its negligible climate benefits, and CO2 policies, including Net Zero, are

misdirected, advocating for focus on pollutants like SO2 and PM10.

Introduction

Agenda 2030 and the UN IPCC emphasize livestock methane reduction to mitigate climate

change, promoting Bovaer as a key tool. However, Bovaer’s composition (~10% 3-NOP,

35–40% PG, ~50% nano-silica) raises concerns about toxicity, acidosis, and pH disruption,

particularly in non-eco farming systems reliant on glyphosate-treated feed, potentially

containing GO/CNTs, and exposed to 5G EMR. The pH Miracle framework posits that

interstitial fluid pH <7.0 increases disease risk, amplified by non-eco practices. Part 1

evaluates Bovaer’s harms in non-eco (TINE cows, Norwegian salmon) versus eco systems

(Røros cows, Polish trout), linking it to Roundup, GO/CNTs, and 5G, and assesses human

health risks via milk and fish. Part 2 challenges the CO2-driven warming narrative, using

Bradford Hill criteria to validate solar magnetism and falsify CO2’s role, critiquing Agenda

2030’s Net Zero policies. The paper draws on New Zealand EPA concerns, Hardell, Davis,

Pall, Rubik, Young, and Brunstad (2025), advocating for eco farming and pollutant-focused

policies.

The INRI Paper on «BOVAER AND THE C02 NARRATIVE» Page Nr; 18

Part 1: Harmful Effects of Bovaer, Links to Non-

Eco Farming, and Comparison to Eco Systems

1.1 Background

Methane from ruminants contributes ~14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with

dairy cows producing ~0.073 metric tons CH4/cow/year, equivalent to ~2.044 metric tons

CO2e (GWP100 = 28) (FAO, 2013). Bovaer, administered at 60–80 mg/kg dry matter

(DM), reduces methane by 20–30% in dairy cows (EFSA, 2021). However, its components

—10% 3-NOP, 35–40% PG, and ~50% nano-silica—raise health concerns, particularly

PG’s potential to induce lactic acidosis, lowering rumen and interstitial fluid pH. Non-eco

farming, using glyphosate-treated feed (e.g., Brazil corn/soybeans) and potentially

GO/CNT-enhanced Roundup or fertilizers (e.g., Yara), amplifies risks, compounded by 5G

EMR exposure. The pH Miracle framework, proposed by Robert O. Young, links pH <7.0 to

disease, with <6.5 and <6.0 indicating significant and extreme harm, respectively. This

section compares non-eco (TINE cows, Norwegian salmon) and eco systems (Røros

cows, Polish trout), assessing Bovaer’s harms, benefits, and human health impacts.

1.2 Materials and Methods

 Data Sources: New Zealand EPA Science Memorandum (APP204100, 2021),

EFSA (2021), peer-reviewed studies on PG toxicity, glyphosate, GO/CNTs, and 5G

EMR (Hardell, Davis, Pall, Rubik, Young), and mortality data from TINE, Røros,

Norwegian Fish Health Report (2023), and Eurofish (2023).

 pH Miracle Framework: Assumes interstitial fluid pH <7.0 is harmful, <6.5

significant, <6.0 extreme, measurable via urine, milk, or tissue. Glyphosate disrupts

microbiomes, reducing nutrient absorption, and small pH changes (e.g., 0.2 units)

impact health.

 Assumptions: Bovaer’s PG contributes to acidosis, glyphosate/GO/CNTs

exacerbate pH disruption, and 5G EMR induces reactive oxygen species (ROS),

lowering pH. Hydroxychloroquine’s (HCQ) 0.2-unit pH increase serves as a

mitigation reference.

 Analysis: Compares non-eco and eco systems, evaluating Bovaer’s effects on pH,

mortality, and human health, linking it to Roundup, GO/CNTs, and 5G.

1.3 Results and Discussion

1.3.1 Bovaer’s Composition and Potential Harms

Bovaer contains ~10% 3-NOP, 35–40% PG, and ~50% nano-silica. The New Zealand EPA

(2021) reports 16.82% 3-NOP metabolites (NOPA, <0.05 mg/kg) in milk, below the

acceptable daily intake (0.3 mg/kg). PG, metabolized to lactic and propionic acids,

increases rumen propionate, potentially lowering rumen pH from 7.2 to 6.8–6.5 (EFSA,

2021). Per the pH Miracle framework, this translates to interstitial fluid pH of 6.8–6.9 (<7.0,

harmful), increasing risks of infections, mastitis, or cancer.

The INRI Paper on «BOVAER AND THE C02 NARRATIVE» Page Nr; 19

PG’s toxicity is low (LD50 ~20 g/kg), but high doses cause lactic acidosis, linked to rare

neurological effects in humans (e.g., confusion). Milk PG residues (<0.1 mg/kg) are

minimal but may lower human interstitial fluid pH, particularly in sensitive populations (e.g.,

diabetic, obese). Nano-silica is inert, with no significant toxicity at approved levels.

Bovaer’s claimed 20–30% methane reduction (0.0146–0.0219 metric tons

CH4/cow/year, or 0.408–0.613 metric tons CO2e) is modest compared to

potential pH-related harms.

1.3.2 Non-Eco Farming: TINE Cows and Norwegian Salmon

 Feed and Additives: TINE’s ~180,000 dairy cows consume glyphosate-treated

corn silage and soybeans, often from Brazil, alongside Bovaer. Norwegian salmon

feed contains ~65% corn/rapeseed, likely treated with Roundup, potentially

enhanced with GO/CNTs (US20200138022A1). High-carbohydrate feeds increase

propionate/lactate, lowering rumen/gut pH to 6.5–6.8. Glyphosate disrupts

microbiomes (e.g., Lactobacillus, Ruminococcus), reducing nutrient absorption

(vitamins B, C, zinc), pushing interstitial fluid pH to 6.8–6.9. Bovaer’s PG

exacerbates acidosis in cows.

 GO/CNTs: Roundup and Yara fertilizers (US20190152862A1) may use GO/CNTs

for enhanced delivery, increasing glyphosate’s microbiome disruption and nutrient

chelation, further lowering pH. Claims about GO/CNTs in Roundup or Yara fertilizers

(US20190152862A1) are confirmed by Maria Chrisler and Robert Young. They can

significantly exacerbate microbiome disruptions, linked to 4G and 5G radiation.

 5G EMR: TINE cows are exposed to 5G precision livestock farming (PLF) systems,

and salmon face 5G, sonar, and very low frequency (VLF) signals. Hardell, Pall, and

Davis suggest EMR induces ROS, lowering pH by ~0.1–0.2 units, exacerbating

acidosis. HCQ’s 0.2-unit pH increase, enhanced by zinc/vitamin D, could mitigate

risks.

 Mortality: Norwegian salmon mortality is 16.7% (2023), driven by infections (38%),

injuries (33%), and unknown causes (20%). TINE cow mortality is 5–7%, linked to

mastitis and lameness. Acidic feed, glyphosate, Bovaer, and EMR may increase

infection susceptibility, but no direct mortality link is confirmed.

 Human Health: Milk with 16.82% NOPA and trace PG, and salmon with

glyphosate/GO/CNT residues, may lower human interstitial fluid pH (<7.0),

potentially increasing cancer risk per pH Miracle. No direct epidemiological data

support this, but sensitive populations are at theoretical risk.

1.3.3 Eco/Natural Systems: Røros Cows and Polish Trout

 Feed and Additives: Røros cows (~1,000) use organic pasture and grains,

avoiding glyphosate, GO/CNTs, and Bovaer. Polish trout (Zator/Przygodzice)

consume local wheat/soy with high fishmeal, maintaining gut pH at 6.8–7.0 and

interstitial fluid pH at 7.0–7.4.

The INRI Paper on «BOVAER AND THE C02 NARRATIVE» Page Nr; 20

 GO/CNTs: Absence of Roundup/Yara fertilizers eliminates GO/CNT exposure;

chemtrail claims remain speculative.

 5G EMR: Røros uses minimal 5G/RFID, and trout farms lack 5G/sonar/VLF,

avoiding ROS-induced pH drops.

 Mortality: Røros cow mortality (4–6%) and trout mortality (10–15%) are lower than

non-eco systems, reflecting cleaner feed and less intensive practices.

 Human Health: Eco milk and trout maintain neutral human pH (7.0–7.4), reducing

disease risk, supported by nutrient-rich diets.

1.3.4 Bovaer’s Benefits vs. Harms

 Benefits: Bovaer reduces methane by 20–30%, saving ~0.408–0.613 metric tons

CO2e/cow/year. For 180,000 TINE cows:

180,000×(0.0146–0.0219)×28=73,584–110,376 metric tons CO2e/year180,000 \

times (0.0146–0.0219) \times 28 = 73,584–110,376 \, \text{metric tons

CO2e/year}180,000 \times (0.0146–0.0219) \times 28 = 73,584–110,376 \, \

text{metric tons CO2e/year}

However, methane’s radiative forcing (0.4 W/m2) is minor compared to CO2 (1.8

W/m2), and livestock’s ~14.5% contribution to global emissions makes Bovaer’s

impact negligible.

 Harms: PG-induced acidosis lowers cow pH to 6.8–6.9, increasing disease risk.

Glyphosate, potential GO/CNTs, and 5G EMR amplify risks in non-eco systems.

Milk residues (NOPA, PG) pose theoretical human health risks. No direct mortality

increase is confirmed, but infection susceptibility rises.

 Comparison to Eco Systems: Eco systems avoid Bovaer, glyphosate, and EMR,

maintaining neutral pH and lower mortality, suggesting non-eco practices drive

harm.

 Conclusion: Bovaer’s harms in non-eco systems, particularly pH

disruption and theoretical human risks, outweigh its minor

methane reduction benefits, especially given the questionable CO2

narrative (Part 2).

1.4 Conclusion for Part 1

Bovaer’s PG and pH-disrupting effects, combined with glyphosate, potential GO/CNTs,

and 5G EMR in non-eco systems, lower interstitial fluid pH to 6.8–6.9, increasing health

risks in TINE cows and Norwegian salmon. Eco Røros cows and Polish trout maintain

neutral pH (7.0–7.4), with lower mortality and no human health risks. The New Zealand

EPA’s concern about 16.82% NOPA in milk highlights potential consumer risks. Bovaer’s

20–30% methane reduction is negligible, questioning its role in Agenda 2030, particularly

in non-eco systems where harms are amplified.

The INRI Paper on «BOVAER AND THE C02 NARRATIVE» Page Nr; 21

Part 2: Debunking the CO2-Driven Global Warming

Narrative and Validating Solar Magnetism

2.1 Abstract

The IPCC and Agenda 2030 claim anthropogenic CO2 drives global warming, justifying

Net Zero policies, including Bovaer. This section falsifies CO2’s role, arguing that solar

magnetism—via Grand Solar Minima (GSM), galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), and solar-lunar

interactions—controls Earth’s temperature, with CO2 responding to temperature per

Henry’s Law. Using Bradford Hill criteria, we validate solar magnetism with data from Beck,

Zharkova, Svensmark, Corbyn, ice cores, and NASA’s Mars observations (Brunstad,

2025). We critique mainstream narratives (e.g., Mann’s hockey stick) and advocate for

addressing pollutants like SO2 and PM10, exploring abiotic hydrocarbons.

2.2 Introduction

The IPCC’s CO2-driven warming narrative underpins Net Zero, including methane

reduction via Bovaer. However, inconsistencies (e.g., wood/ethanol as “carbon-neutral”)

and empirical data suggest solar magnetism, not CO2, drives climate. Brunstad (2025)

posits that GCRs, modulated by solar cycles, and solar-lunar effects govern temperature,

with CO2 following via ocean outgassing. This section applies Bradford Hill criteria to

falsify CO2 and validate solar magnetism, critiquing Agenda 2030 and proposing

alternative policies.

2.3 Materials and Methods

 Data Sources: Brunstad (2025), Beck (2007), Zharkova (2020), Svensmark (2007,

2019), Corbyn (2019), Vostok/EPICA ice cores (Petit et al., 1999), NASA Mars data

(2010), C12/C13 ratios (Segalstad, 1998), IPCC (2021), Montford (2010).

 Bradford Hill Criteria: Strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological

gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, analogy.

 Assumptions: CO2 follows temperature (Henry’s Law), solar magnetism drives

climate via GCRs and jet stream shifts, and mainstream narratives are biased by

Agenda 2030.

 Analysis: Falsifies CO2, validates solar magnetism, critiques policy.

2.4 Results and Discussion

2.4.1 Falsifying CO2 as the Primary Driver

 Historical CO2 and Temperature: Beck’s measurements show 400–440 ppm CO2

in 1942, yet global cooling occurred (1940s–1970s), and the 1930s (~300 ppm)

were warm, decoupling CO2 from temperature (Beck, 2007). Ice cores indicate

temperature precedes CO2 by 800–2,000 years, per Henry’s Law (Petit et al.,

1999).

The INRI Paper on «BOVAER AND THE C02 NARRATIVE» Page Nr; 22

 C12/C13 Ratios: ~3% of CO2 is anthropogenic, with oceans and volcanoes

dominating (Segalstad, 1998). CO2-temperature equilibrium occurs in 4–6 years,

suggesting CO2 responds to temperature (Harde, 2016).

 Mars Ice: Martian ice sublimation (1980–2010) parallels Earth’s ice loss, driven by

solar factors, not CO2 (NASA, 2010).

 Mainstream Flaws: Mann’s hockey stick (1998) minimizes historical variability

(e.g., Medieval Warm Period), criticized in Climategate (Montford, 2010). IPCC

reports overemphasize CO2 despite natural drivers (IPCC, 2021).

2.4.2 Validating Solar Magnetism via Bradford Hill Criteria

1. Strength: Zharkova’s models show a 5°C North Sea drop during the Maunder

Minimum, despite low CO2 (Zharkova, 2020). CO2 correlations are weak (Beck,

2007).

2. Consistency: Solar-temperature links align across ice cores, tree rings, and

historical records (Petit et al., 1999). GCR-cloud effects are confirmed (Svensmark,

2019).

3. Specificity: Solar magnetism drives climate via GCR-induced clouds and jet stream

shifts (Svensmark, 2007; Corbyn, 2019). Mars’ ice loss supports solar specificity

(NASA, 2010).

4. Temporality: Temperature precedes CO2 in ice cores (Petit et al., 1999). Cooling

aligns with GSM onset (Zharkova, 2020).

5. Biological Gradient: Higher GCR flux during low solar activity cools Earth; lower

flux warms it (Svensmark, 2007).

6. Plausibility: GCR-cloud and solar-lunar mechanisms are physically sound

(Svensmark, 2007; Corbyn, 2019).

7. Coherence: Solar magnetism coheres with GSM cooling and Mars’ ice loss (NASA,

2010).

8. Experiment: Svensmark’s CLOUD experiments confirm GCR-cloud links

(Svensmark, 2019).

9. Analogy: Mars and Titan show solar-driven climate changes (NASA, 2005, 2010).

2.4.3 Policy Implications

 CO2 as Non-Pollutant: CO2 (~420 ppm) is essential, with ~3% anthropogenic

(Segalstad, 1998). Net Zero, including Bovaer, is misdirected.

 Real Pollutants: Focus on SO2 and PM10 from coal plants, using filtration

technologies (Smith et al., 2011).

 Abiotic Hydrocarbons: Evidence of abiotic oil/gas (e.g., Statfjord, Titan)

suggests renewable resources, reducing CO2 policy urgency (Kenney et al.,

2002; NASA, 2005).

 Critique of Agenda 2030: Net Zero imposes economic costs without climate

benefits, driven by flawed CO2 science.

The INRI Paper on «BOVAER AND THE C02 NARRATIVE» Page Nr; 23

2.5 Conclusion for Part 2

The CO2-driven warming narrative is falsified by historical data, ice cores, and planetary

observations, with solar magnetism validated as the primary climate driver via Bradford Hill

criteria. Agenda 2030’s Net Zero, including Bovaer, relies on flawed science, imposing

economic burdens without benefits. Policies should target SO2/PM10 and explore abiotic

hydrocarbons, aligning with empirical evidence.

Conclusion

Bovaer’s harms in non-eco systems, including PG-induced acidosis, pH disruption (6.8–

6.9), and potential human health risks via milk (16.82% NOPA), outweigh its 20–30%

methane reduction benefits, which are negligible given methane’s minor climate impact.

Non-eco TINE cows and Norwegian salmon face amplified risks from glyphosate, potential

GO/CNTs, and 5G EMR, while eco Røros cows and Polish trout maintain neutral pH and

lower mortality. The CO2-driven warming narrative is falsified, with solar magnetism,

GCRs, and Henry’s Law governing climate. Agenda 2030’s Net Zero, including Bovaer, is

misdirected; policies should prioritize eco farming and pollutants like SO2/PM10.

References

1. Beck, E.-G. (2007). Energy & Environment, 18(2), 259–282.

2. Corbyn, P. (2019). Weather Action Publications.

3. EFSA. (2021). EFSA Journal, 19(6), 6632.

4. Eurofish. (2023). Poland: Fisheries and Aquaculture.

5. FAO. (2013). Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock. Rome.

6. Fish Farming Expert. (2024). Chilean Salmon Industry.

7. Harde, H. (2016). Global and Planetary Change, 152, 19–26.

8. Kenney, J. F., et al. (2002). PNAS, 99(17), 10976–10981.

9. Montford, A. W. (2010). The Hockey Stick Illusion.

10. NASA. (2005, 2010). Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter; Cassini Mission.

11. New Zealand EPA. (2021). Science Memorandum APP204100: Bovaer.

12. Petit, J. R., et al. (1999). Nature, 399, 429–436.

13. Segalstad, T. V. (1998). Global and Planetary Change, 15(3–4), 151–161.

14. Smith, S. J., et al. (2011). Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 11(3), 1101–

1116.

15. Svensmark, H. (2007). Astronomy & Geophysics, 48(1), 1.18–1.24.

16. Svensmark, H. (2019). Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics,

191, 105112.

17. Zharkova, V. V. (2020). Temperature, 7(3), 217–222.

The INRI Paper on «BOVAER AND THE C02 NARRATIVE» Page Nr; 24

Bovaer®: A Questionable Climate Solution with Harmful

Consequences and the Debunking of CO2 as a Climate Driver

By Anders Brunstad, INRI Org, Email: anders.o.brunstad@gmail.com

Date: June 19, 2025

Introduction

Under Agenda 2030, Bovaer® (3-nitrooxypropanol, 3-NOP) is promoted as a feed additive

to reduce livestock methane emissions, with claims of cutting dairy cow methane by 20–

30%. But is this a genuine climate solution, or a risky intervention that harms animals and

humans? Bovaer’s composition—10% 3-NOP, 35–40% propylene glycol (PG), and 50%

nano-silica—raises concerns about acidosis, pH disruption, and potential health risks,

particularly in non-eco farming systems using glyphosate-treated feed, possibly enhanced

with graphene oxide (GO) and carbon nanotubes (CNTs), and exposed to 5G

electromagnetic radiation (EMR). Using the pH Miracle framework, which links interstitial

fluid pH below 7.0 to increased disease risk, this essay reveals how Bovaer’s harms

outweigh its negligible climate benefits. Furthermore, we debunk the CO2-driven global

warming narrative using a compact version of the Bradford Hill criteria, demonstrating that

solar magnetism, galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), and Henry’s Law govern climate. Drawing

on data from TINE’s dairy cows, Norwegian salmon, eco Røros cows, Polish trout, and

scientific sources like Beck, Zharkova, and Svensmark, we argue that Agenda 2030’s Net

Zero policies, including Bovaer, are misguided, calling for a shift to eco farming and focus

on real pollutants like SO2 and PM10.

Bovaer: A Risky Intervention with Limited Benefits

Bovaer is designed to reduce methane emissions from ruminants, which contribute 14.5%

of global greenhouse gas emissions. A dairy cow produces ~0.073 metric tons of methane

annually, equivalent to ~2.044 metric tons CO2-equivalent (CO2e) using a global warming

potential (GWP100) of 28 (FAO, 2013). Bovaer, dosed at 60–80 mg/kg dry matter, is

claimed to cut methane by 20–30%, yielding savings for 180,000 TINE cows of:

180,000×(0.0146–0.0219)×28=73,584–110,376 metric tons CO2e/year180,000 \times

(0.0146–0.0219) \times 28 = 73,584–110,376 \, \text{metric tons CO2e/year}180,000 \

times (0.0146–0.0219) \times 28 = 73,584–110,376 \, \text{metric tons CO2e/year}

This seems promising, but methane’s climate impact is minor (0.4 W/m2 radiative forcing

vs. CO2’s 1.8 W/m2), and Bovaer’s effect is negligible globally. For comparison, 1,100

large containerships emit 319.77 million metric tons CO2 annually, based on each ship

consuming 90,000 tons of fuel and emitting 290,700 tons CO2 (3.23 kg CO2/kg fuel).

Bovaer’s savings from 180,000 cows cover only 0.02–0.03% of this, and even with 20

million EU cows (12.264 million tons CO2e saved), only ~3.8% of ship emissions are

offset.

But Bovaer’s costs are significant. Its composition—~10% 3-NOP, 35–40% PG, and ~50%

nano-silica—raises health concerns. PG is metabolized into lactic and propionic acids,

increasing rumen propionate and potentially lowering rumen pH from 7.2 to 6.8–6.5

(EFSA, 2021).

The INRI Paper on «BOVAER AND THE C02 NARRATIVE» Page Nr; 25

According to the pH Miracle framework, developed by Robert O. Young, this leads to

interstitial fluid pH of 6.8–6.9, below the 7.0 threshold indicating harmful health effects like

increased risk of infections, mastitis, or cancer. PG’s toxicity is low (LD50 ~20 g/kg), but

high doses cause lactic acidosis, linked to rare neurological symptoms in humans, such as

confusion. New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) reports 16.82% 3-

NOP metabolites (NOPA, <0.05 mg/kg) in milk, below the acceptable daily intake (0.3

mg/kg), but PG residues (<0.1 mg/kg) may lower human interstitial fluid pH, especially in

diabetics or obese individuals. Nano-silica is considered inert, with no toxicity at approved

levels.

Bovaer’s economic costs are also notable. For 180,000 cows, it costs $17–32.7 million

annually ($95–182/cow), partially offset by carbon credits (~$5.5–9 million at $50/ton

CO2e). But in non-eco systems, Bovaer’s harms are amplified by other factors, which we

now explore.

Non-Eco vs. Eco Farming: A Contrast in Health and Sustainability

Non-eco farming systems, like TINE’s ~180,000 dairy cows and Norwegian salmon

farming, stand in stark contrast to eco systems like Røros cows and Polish trout from

Zator/Przygodzice. These differences reveal how Bovaer, glyphosate, potential GO/CNTs,

and 5G EMR exacerbate health risks in non-eco environments.

Non-Eco Systems: TINE Cows and Norwegian Salmon

TINE cows consume glyphosate-treated corn silage and soybeans, often from Brazil,

alongside Bovaer. Norwegian salmon feed contains ~65% corn/rapeseed, likely treated

with Roundup, possibly enhanced with GO/CNTs (US20200138022A1). Carbohydrate-rich

feeds increase propionate/lactate, lowering rumen/gut pH to 6.5–6.8. Glyphosate disrupts

microbiomes (e.g., Lactobacillus, Ruminococcus), reducing nutrient absorption (vitamins

B, C, zinc) and pushing interstitial fluid pH to 6.8–6.9, exacerbated by Bovaer’s PG-

induced acidosis. Claims about GO/CNTs in Roundup or Yara fertilizers

(US20190152862A1) are confirmed by Maria Chrisler and Robert Young. They can

significantly exacerbate microbiome disruptions, linked to 4G and 5G radiation.

5G EMR adds another risk. TINE cows are exposed to 5G precision livestock farming

(PLF) systems, and salmon face 5G, sonar, and very low frequency (VLF) signals.

Researchers like Hardell, Pall, and Davis suggest EMR induces reactive oxygen species

(ROS), lowering pH by ~0.1–0.2 units, worsening acidosis. A 0.2-unit pH increase, as with

hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) plus zinc/vitamin D, could mitigate risks but is not applied in

practice.

Mortality data highlight the issues. Norwegian salmon have 16.7% mortality (2023), driven

by infections (38%), injuries (33%), and unknown causes (20%). TINE cows have 5–7%

mortality, linked to mastitis and lameness. Acidic feed, glyphosate, Bovaer, and EMR may

increase infection susceptibility, but no direct mortality link is confirmed. For humans, milk

with 16.82% NOPA and trace PG, and salmon with glyphosate/GO/CNT residues, pose a

The INRI Paper on «BOVAER AND THE C02 NARRATIVE» Page Nr; 26

theoretical risk of lowering interstitial fluid pH (<7.0), potentially increasing cancer risk per

pH Miracle. No epidemiological data support this, but vulnerable groups are at risk.

Eco Systems: Røros Cows and Polish Trout

Eco Røros cows (~1,000) use pasture and grains free of glyphosate, GO/CNTs, or Bovaer.

Polish trout consume local wheat/soy with high fishmeal, maintaining gut pH at 6.8–7.0

and interstitial fluid pH at 7.0–7.4. Absence of Roundup/Yara fertilizers eliminates GO/CNT

exposure, and minimal 5G/RFID at Røros and no 5G/sonar/VLF at trout farms avoid ROS-

induced pH drops. Mortality is lower: 4–6% for Røros cows and 10–15% for trout,

reflecting cleaner feed and less intensive methods. Eco milk and trout maintain neutral

human pH (7.0–7.4), reducing disease risk with nutrient-rich diets.

The contrast is striking. Non-eco systems, with Bovaer, glyphosate, and EMR, create a

toxic environment that increases health risks for animals and humans. Eco systems avoid

these, showing a path to sustainable farming. But why push Bovaer when CO2’s role as a

climate driver is dubious?

Debunking CO2-Driven Global Warming: The Sun Rules Climate

The IPCC and Agenda 2030 claim anthropogenic CO2 drives global warming, justifying

Net Zero policies like Bovaer. But empirical data reveal that solar magnetism, galactic

cosmic rays (GCRs), and Henry’s Law, which describes CO2’s response to temperature

changes, govern climate. Using a compact version of the Bradford Hill criteria, based on

Brunstad (2025), we debunk CO2’s role and validate solar magnetism.

Evidence Against CO2 as a Climate Driver

 Historical Data: Ernst Beck’s measurements show 400–440 ppm CO2 in 1942, yet

global cooling occurred from the 1940s to 1970s, and the 1930s (~300 ppm) were

warm, decoupling CO2 from temperature (Beck, 2007). Vostok/EPICA ice cores

indicate temperature precedes CO2 by 800–2,000 years, consistent with Henry’s

Law, where warmer oceans release CO2 (Petit et al., 1999).

 C12/C13 Ratios: Only ~3% of CO2 is anthropogenic, with oceans and volcanoes

dominating (Segalstad, 1998). CO2 and temperature equilibrate in 4–6 years,

supporting CO2 following temperature (Harde, 2016).

 Mars’ Ice: Sublimation of Mars’ ice (1980–2010) parallels Earth’s ice loss, driven by

solar factors, not CO2, confirming the sun’s system-wide influence (NASA, 2010).

 Mainstream Flaws: Michael Mann’s hockey stick (1998) suppresses historical

variability, like the Medieval Warm Period, and was criticized in Climategate for

methodological flaws (Montford, 2010). The IPCC overstates CO2’s role despite

natural drivers (IPCC, 2021).

Validating Solar Magnetism with Bradford Hill Criteria

The Bradford Hill criteria assess causality. Here is a compact application to validate solar

magnetism and debunk CO2:

The INRI Paper on «BOVAER AND THE C02 NARRATIVE» Page Nr; 27

1. Strength and Consistency: Solar-temperature links are strong, with a 5°C North

Sea drop during the Maunder Minimum (1645–1710), despite low CO2 (Zharkova,

2020). CO2 correlations are weak, with cooling in the 1940s–70s despite rising CO2

(Beck, 2007). Solar effects are consistent across ice cores, tree rings, and historical

records (Petit et al., 1999).

2. Specificity and Temporality: Solar magnetism drives climate via GCR-induced

clouds, increasing albedo during low solar activity, and jet stream shifts

(Svensmark, 2007; Corbyn, 2019). Mars’ ice loss confirms solar specificity (NASA,

2010). Temperature precedes CO2 in ice cores, decoupling CO2 as a cause (Petit

et al., 1999).

3. Gradient and Plausibility: Higher GCR flux during low solar activity cools Earth;

lower flux warms it, as seen in the Grand Solar Maximum (1950–1990) (Svensmark,

2007). The GCR-cloud mechanism is physically sound, supported by CERN’s

CLOUD experiments (Svensmark, 2019).

4. Coherence and Experiment: Solar magnetism aligns with historical cooling

(Maunder) and Mars’ ice loss (NASA, 2010). Experiments confirm GCR’s role in

cloud formation, while no experiments support CO2 as a primary driver (Svensmark,

2019).

5. Analogy: Solar-driven climate changes on Mars and Titan provide analogies

supporting solar magnetism (NASA, 2005, 2010).

Conclusion: CO2 fails as a climate driver, while solar magnetism meets the criteria.

GCRs, modulated by 11-year Schwabe, 22-year Hale, and ~400-year solar cycles,

increase cloud formation during minima like Maunder, cooling Earth. Zharkova’s

prediction of a Grand Solar Minimum (2026–2053) forecasts ~0.3–1°C cooling,

consistent with historical patterns (Zharkova, 2020).

Policy Implications

CO2 (~420 ppm) is essential for life, with only ~3% anthropogenic (Segalstad, 1998). Net

Zero, including Bovaer, is misguided and economically burdensome.

Instead, policies should focus on:

 Real Pollutants: SO2 and PM10 from coal plants can be reduced with filtration

technologies (Smith et al., 2011).

 Abiotic Hydrocarbons: Evidence of abiotic oil/gas (e.g., Statfjord, Titan) suggests

renewable resources, reducing the urgency of CO2 cuts (Kenney et al., 2002;

NASA, 2005).

 Eco Farming: Eco systems like Røros and Polish trout offer a sustainable model,

free of Bovaer, glyphosate, and EMR.

The INRI Paper on «BOVAER AND THE C02 NARRATIVE» Page Nr; 28

Agenda 2030’s Net Zero rests on flawed science, ignoring the sun’s dominant role.

Bovaer’s negligible methane reduction does not justify its health risks, and the CO2

narrative distracts from real environmental challenges.

Conclusion and the Way Forward

Bovaer represents a misguided approach to the climate issue. Its PG-induced

acidosis lowers interstitial fluid pH to 6.8–6.9 in non-eco TINE cows and Norwegian

salmon, increasing risks of infections and theoretical health effects for humans via

milk (16.82% NOPA) and fish. Glyphosate, potential GO/CNTs, and 5G EMR amplify

these harms, while eco Røros cows and Polish trout maintain neutral pH (7.0–7.4)

and lower mortality. Bovaer’s 20–30% methane reduction is negligible, especially

when containerships alone emit ~3,000 times more CO2 than the savings from

180,000 cows.

CO2-driven warming is debunked by historical data, ice cores, Mars observations,

and the Bradford Hill criteria. Solar magnetism, via GCRs and solar-lunar

interactions, governs climate, with CO2 following temperature changes per Henry’s

Law. Agenda 2030’s Net Zero, including Bovaer, imposes economic and health costs

without climate benefits. Norway and the EU should embrace eco farming, eliminate

Bovaer, and target real pollutants like SO2 and PM10. By heeding empirical

evidence and prioritizing sustainability, we can build a healthier future for humans,

animals, and the planet.

References

1. Beck, E.-G. (2007). Energy & Environment, 18(2), 259–282.

2. Corbyn, P. (2019). Weather Action Publications.

3. EFSA. (2021). EFSA Journal, 19(6), 6632.

4. Eurofish. (2023). Poland: Fisheries and Aquaculture.

5. FAO. (2013). Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock. Rome.

6. Fish Farming Expert. (2024). Chilean Salmon Industry.

7. Harde, H. (2016). Global and Planetary Change, 152, 19–26.

8. Kenney, J. F., et al. (2002). PNAS, 99(17), 10976–10981.

9. Montford, A. W. (2010). The Hockey Stick Illusion.

10. NASA. (2005, 2010). Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter; Cassini Mission.

11. New Zealand EPA. (2021). Science Memorandum APP204100: Bovaer.

12. Petit, J. R., et al. (1999). Nature, 399, 429–436.

13. Segalstad, T. V. (1998). Global and Planetary Change, 15(3–4), 151–161.

14. Smith, S. J., et al. (2011). Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 11(3), 1101–

1116.

15. Svensmark, H. (2007). Astronomy & Geophysics, 48(1), 1.18–1.24.

16. Svensmark, H. (2019). Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics,

191, 105112.

17. Zharkova, V. V. (2020). Temperature, 7(3), 217–222.

The INRI Paper on «BOVAER AND THE C02 NARRATIVE» Page Nr; 29

Bovaer®: A Questionable Climate Solution with

Harmful Consequences and the Debunking of CO2

as a Climate Driver

By Anders Brunstad, INRI Org, Email: anders.o.brunstad@gmail.com

Date: June 19, 2025

Introduction

Agenda 2030 promotes Bovaer® (3-nitrooxypropanol, 3-NOP) as a feed additive to cut

livestock methane emissions, claiming 20–30% reductions in dairy cow methane. But is

this a true climate solution or a risky intervention harming animals and humans? Bovaer’s

composition—10% 3-NOP, 35–40% propylene glycol (PG), and 50% nano-silica—raises

concerns about acidosis, pH disruption, and health risks, especially in non-eco farming

systems using glyphosate-treated feed, possibly with graphene oxide (GO) and carbon

nanotubes (CNTs), and exposed to 5G electromagnetic radiation (EMR). Using the pH

Miracle framework, which links interstitial fluid pH below 7.0 to increased disease risk, this

essay shows Bovaer’s harms outweigh its negligible climate benefits. Furthermore, we

debunk CO2-driven global warming with a compact Bradford Hill criteria analysis,

demonstrating solar magnetism and galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) govern climate. Drawing

on data from TINE’s dairy cows, Norwegian salmon, eco Røros cows, and Polish trout, we

argue Agenda 2030’s Net Zero policies, including Bovaer, are misguided, demanding a

shift to eco farming and focus on pollutants like SO2 and PM10.

Bovaer: A Risky Intervention with Limited Benefits

Bovaer aims to reduce methane from ruminants, contributing 14.5% of global greenhouse

gas emissions. A dairy cow produces ~0.073 metric tons of methane yearly, equivalent to

~2.044 metric tons CO2-equivalent (CO2e) at GWP100 = 28 (FAO, 2013). Bovaer, dosed

at 60–80 mg/kg dry matter, claims 20–30% methane cuts, yielding for 180,000 TINE cows:

180,000×(0.0146–0.0219)×28=73,584–110,376 metric tons CO2e/year180,000 \times

(0.0146–0.0219) \times 28 = 73,584–110,376 \, \text{metric tons CO2e/year}180,000 \

times (0.0146–0.0219) \times 28 = 73,584–110,376 \, \text{metric tons CO2e/year}

This appears appealing, but methane’s climate impact is small (0.4 W/m2 radiative forcing

vs. CO2’s 1.8 W/m2), and Bovaer’s effect is negligible globally. By comparison, 1,100 large

containerships emit ~319.77 million metric tons CO2 yearly (90,000 tons fuel/ship, 290,700

tons CO2). Bovaer’s savings from 180,000 cows cover just 0.02–0.03% of this.

Bovaer’s costs, however, are significant. Its composition—~10% 3-NOP, 35–40% PG, and

~50% nano-silica—raises health concerns. PG metabolizes into lactic and propionic acids,

potentially lowering rumen pH from 7.2 to 6.8–6.5 (EFSA, 2021). Per the pH Miracle

framework, this results in interstitial fluid pH of 6.8–6.9 (<7.0), increasing risks of infections

or mastitis. PG’s toxicity is low (LD50 ~20 g/kg), but high doses cause lactic acidosis,

linked to neurological symptoms in humans.

The INRI Paper on «BOVAER AND THE C02 NARRATIVE» Page Nr; 30

New Zealand’s EPA reports 16.82% 3-NOP metabolites (NOPA, <0.05 mg/kg) in milk,

below acceptable intake (0.3 mg/kg), but PG residues (<0.1 mg/kg) may lower human pH,

especially in diabetics. Nano-silica is inert, with no toxicity at approved levels.

Economically, Bovaer costs $17–32.7 million yearly for 180,000 cows ($95–182/cow),

partly offset by carbon credits (~$5.5–9 million at $50/ton CO2e). But in non-eco systems,

harms are amplified by other factors.

Non-Eco vs. Eco Farming: Health and Sustainability

Non-eco systems, like TINE’s 180,000 cows and Norwegian salmon farming, contrast with

eco systems like Røros cows and Polish trout from Zator/Przygodzice, exposing Bovaer’s

risks.

Non-Eco Systems: TINE Cows and Norwegian Salmon

TINE cows eat glyphosate-treated corn silage and soybeans, often from Brazil, with

Bovaer. Salmon feed contains ~65% corn/rapeseed, likely treated with Roundup, possibly

with GO/CNTs (US20200138022A1). Carbohydrate-rich feeds lower rumen/gut pH to 6.5–

6.8. Glyphosate disrupts microbiomes (e.g., Lactobacillus), reducing nutrient uptake

(vitamins B, C, zinc), pushing interstitial fluid pH to 6.8–6.9, worsened by Bovaer’s PG-

acidosis. Claims about GO/CNTs in Roundup or Yara fertilizers (US20190152862A1) are

confirmed by Maria Chrisler and Robert Young. They can significantly exacerbate

microbiome disruptions, linked to 4G and 5G radiation.

5G EMR adds risk. TINE cows face 5G precision farming, and salmon encounter 5G

and sonar. Hardell and Pall suggest EMR induces reactive oxygen species (ROS),

lowering pH by ~0.1–0.2 units. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with zinc could counteract

this but isn’t used.

Mortality reflects issues: salmon have 16.7% mortality (2023) from infections (38%) and

injuries (33%); TINE cows have 5–7% mortality from mastitis and lameness. Glyphosate,

Bovaer, and EMR may increase infection risk, but no direct mortality link exists. Milk with

16.82% NOPA and PG residues, and salmon with glyphosate, may lower human pH

(<7.0), raising theoretical cancer risk, especially for vulnerable groups.

Eco Systems: Røros Cows and Polish Trout

Røros cows (~1,000) use eco pasture without glyphosate, GO/CNTs, or Bovaer. Polish

trout eat local wheat/soy with fishmeal, maintaining gut pH at 6.8–7.0 and interstitial fluid

pH at 7.0–7.4. Absence of Roundup/Yara fertilizers eliminates GO/CNT exposure, and

minimal 5G at Røros and no 5G/sonar at trout farms avoid ROS. Mortality is lower: 4–6%

for Røros cows and 10–15% for trout, due to cleaner feed. Eco milk and trout maintain

neutral human pH, reducing disease risk.

The INRI Paper on «BOVAER AND THE C02 NARRATIVE» Page Nr; 31

Non-eco systems create a toxic environment, while eco systems show

sustainability. But why push Bovaer when CO2’s climate role is dubious?

Debunking CO2-Driven Warming: The Sun Rules Climate

The IPCC and Agenda 2030 claim CO2 drives global warming, justifying Net Zero policies

like Bovaer. But data show solar magnetism, galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), and Henry’s

Law, describing CO2’s response to temperature, govern climate. A compact Bradford Hill

analysis, based on Brunstad (2025), debunks CO2 and validates solar magnetism.

Evidence Against CO2

 Historical Data: Beck’s measurements show 400–440 ppm CO2 in 1942, yet

cooling occurred (1940s–70s), and the 1930s (~300 ppm) were warm (Beck, 2007).

Ice cores show temperature precedes CO2 by 800–2,000 years, per Henry’s Law

(Petit et al., 1999).

 C12/C13 Ratios: Only ~3% CO2 is anthropogenic; oceans and volcanoes dominate

(Segalstad, 1998). CO2-temperature equilibrium takes 4–6 years (Harde, 2016).

 Mars’ Ice: Mars’ ice sublimation (1980–2010) parallels Earth’s ice loss, driven by

solar factors (NASA, 2010).

 Mainstream Flaws: Mann’s hockey stick (1998) suppresses historical variability,

criticized in Climategate (Montford, 2010).

Solar Magnetism via Bradford Hill

1. Strength/Consistency: The sun caused a 5°C North Sea drop during the Maunder

Minimum (1645–1710), despite low CO2 (Zharkova, 2020). CO2 correlations are

weak (Beck, 2007). Solar effects align with ice cores (Petit et al., 1999).

2. Specificity/Temporality: GCR-induced clouds and jet stream shifts drive climate

(Svensmark, 2007; Corbyn, 2019). Mars’ ice loss confirms solar role (NASA, 2010).

Temperature precedes CO2 (Petit et al., 1999).

3. Gradient/Plausibility: High GCR flux during low solar activity cools; low flux warms

(Svensmark, 2007). The GCR-cloud mechanism is physically sound (Svensmark,

2019).

4. Coherence/Experiment: Solar magnetism aligns with Maunder cooling and Mars’

ice (NASA, 2010). CLOUD experiments confirm GCR-clouds (Svensmark, 2019).

Conclusion: CO2 is no driver; solar magnetism rules via GCRs,

modulated by solar cycles. Zharkova’s Grand Solar Minimum (2026–

2053) predicts ~0.3–1°C cooling (Zharkova, 2020).

The INRI Paper on «BOVAER AND THE C02 NARRATIVE» Page Nr; 32

Policy Implications

CO2 (~420 ppm) is essential, with ~3% anthropogenic (Segalstad, 1998). Net Zero,

including Bovaer, is misguided.

Policies should focus on:

 Pollutants: SO2 and PM10 from coal plants (Smith et al., 2011).

 Abiotic Hydrocarbons: Abiotic oil/gas (e.g., Statfjord) reduces CO2 urgency

(Kenney et al., 2002).

 Eco Farming: Røros and Polish trout show the way.

Conclusion

Bovaer’s PG-acidosis lowers pH to 6.8–6.9 in TINE cows and salmon, increasing

infection risk and theoretical health effects via milk (16.82% NOPA). Glyphosate and

EMR amplify harms, while eco Røros cows and Polish trout avoid risks. Bovaer’s

methane reduction is negligible against containerships’ ~3,000-times larger CO2

emissions. CO2-driven warming is debunked; solar magnetism governs climate. Net

Zero, including Bovaer, is misguided. Norway and the EU should embrace eco

farming and target SO2/PM10 for a sustainable future.

References

1. Beck, E.-G. (2007). Energy & Environment, 18(2), 259–282.

2. Corbyn, P. (2019). Weather Action Publications.

3. EFSA. (2021). EFSA Journal, 19(6), 6632.

4. Eurofish. (2023). Poland: Fisheries and Aquaculture.

5. FAO. (2013). Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock. Rome.

6. Fish Farming Expert. (2024). Chilean Salmon Industry.

7. Harde, H. (2016). Global and Planetary Change, 152, 19–26.

8. Kenney, J. F., et al. (2002). PNAS, 99(17), 10976–10981.

9. Montford, A. W. (2010). The Hockey Stick Illusion.

10. NASA. (2005, 2010). Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter; Cassini Mission.

11. New Zealand EPA. (2021). Science Memorandum APP204100: Bovaer.

12. Petit, J. R., et al. (1999). Nature, 399, 429–436.

13. Segalstad, T. V. (1998). Global and Planetary Change, 15(3–4), 151–161.

14. Smith, S. J., et al. (2011). Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 11(3), 1101–

1116.

15. Svensmark, H. (2007). Astronomy & Geophysics, 48(1), 1.18–1.24.

16. Svensmark, H. (2019). Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics,

191, 105112.

17. Zharkova, V. V. (2020). Temperature, 7(3), 217–222.

The INRI Paper on «BOVAER AND THE C02 NARRATIVE» Page Nr; 33