Unilever jumping on the regenerative bandwagon.

Poorbuthappy

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon

Setting there own definition 🙄

Some pretty spurious figures in there, like "livestock and crop farming use 80% of the world's fresh water" How is that even considered worth printing?
And Salatin, Brown, Perkins etc might take issue with the claim it takes 100 - 400 years to build 1cm of soil.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer

Setting there own definition 🙄

Some pretty spurious figures in there, like "livestock and crop farming use 80% of the world's fresh water" How is that even considered worth printing?
And Salatin, Brown, Perkins etc might take issue with the claim it takes 100 - 400 years to build 1cm of soil.
Very little is "used" in livestock production, it is only applied on it's way through the system.

Livestock systems overwhelmingly use "Green" water anyway.
 

GeorgeK

Member
Location
Leicestershire
also how much microplastic/chems do we consumers throw down the drian via washing machines/dishwashers/the sink/bath etc with their products.
There seems to be some (but not enough) acknowledgement of plastic synthetic fibres from clothes getting into water, but I wonder how much we breath in? You know when the sun streams in through the windows sometimes in a way that allows you to see all the 'dust' floating in the air, I bet that's mostly plastic fibres from clothing, carpets and furniture. Where are the studies looking into how much of this gets trapped in our lungs and what it does? I imagine natural wool fibres would break down completely in our lungs, back into nitrogen from whence they came
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :unsure: A chemical company makes out it's environmentally friendly
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Even worse, it's set out to tell us producers how we should become environmentally friendly.

Worse still, it's claiming that nobody is defining regenerative so it's doing it on our behalf when, in fact, many individuals and organisations already broadly agree on what defines regenerative.
 
Last edited:

Treg

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Cornwall
Even worse, it's song out to tell us producers how we should become environmentally friendly.

Worse still, it's claiming that nobody is defining regenerative so it's doing it on our behalf when, in fact, many individuals and organisations already broadly agree on what defines regenerative.
I think it's called passing the buck, " ooh look at us so squeaky clean ( because we use detergents) but those meddling farmers haven't got a clue, we'll show them how to be squeaky clean like us" :rolleyes: :X3:
 

Poorbuthappy

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
Even worse, it's set out to tell us producers how we should become environmentally friendly.

Worse still, it's claiming that nobody is defining regenerative so it's doing it on our behalf when, in fact, many individuals and organisations already broadly agree on what defines regenerative.
This exactly.
 

martian

DD Moderator
BASE UK Member
Location
N Herts

Some pretty spurious figures in there, like "livestock and crop farming use 80% of the world's fresh water" How is that even considered worth printing?
They add up all the rain that falls on pasture or crop land and then attribute that to the beef or wheat or whatever is being produced. Nobody questions it, it gets trotted out by every armchair warrior to justify their position as if the rain would fall somewhere else if the cows weren't there.

Funnily enough @ShooTa , Unilever have quite a good reputation for trying to do the right thing, they looked after their workers in the olden days when not everybody did, building Port Sunlight to house them amongst other things. They are now a 'B Corporation' which title is only awarded to companies which match Purpose with Profit and manage to jump through various hoops. That's not to say they can't do better, but there are many worse organisations...
 

Poorbuthappy

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
They add up all the rain that falls on pasture or crop land and then attribute that to the beef or wheat or whatever is being produced. Nobody questions it, it gets trotted out by every armchair warrior to justify their position as if the rain would fall somewhere else if the cows weren't there.

A nonsense position in itself, but even then, they also state at least 1/3 of the earth's non ice covered land area is used for livestock and cropping, so 80% of fresh water is used in that 33% area?
As I say, not even worthy of print.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
It’s all very well defining regenerative principles but will they regenerate anything?
Exactly. At that level it's all greenwash. I don't give a hoot whether a business is certified as passing some "regenerative" threshold, only that it is actually improving the overall average of its ecological process cycles (carbon cycle, water cycle, energy flow and biologial diversity). If, on balance, they are not improving then they are declining and that is NOT "regenerative." How does that relate to Unilever (or Nestle or PepsiCo etc) selling a product they have concoted in a factory from highly processed ingredients for profit?
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 75 43.6%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 61 35.5%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 27 15.7%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 3 1.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,283
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top