VitalFluid B.V.’s Post

Addressing Concerns: Our Approach to Sustainable Farming at PEMU Recently, we’ve received feedback regarding our use of pesticides and fertilizers, and the promotion of inorganic inputs. We appreciate the dialogue and want to clarify our approach and commitment to sustainable farming. In the real world, outside the scholarly and activist circles, change does not happen instantly. Farmers, who often live from hand to mouth and face significant risks if they lose their harvest, will only change gradually as they see the benefits of regenerative practices and lose their fear of loss. Pushing for an instant drop in pesticides and fertilizers or the adoption of organic inputs is often not acceptable to these farmers. They need to see tangible benefits and have confidence in new practices before making such shifts. This pragmatic approach is essential for sustainable change. The activist view that demands immediate adoption has not worked, and there is little evidence that this message is being widely adopted. Significant amounts of money have been spent on research and seminars on regenerative and organic farming, often without the representation of actual farmers, and yet there is little to show on the ground. While PEMU uses a lot of organic inputs in our systems, we are not an organic organization. PEMU is a commercial enterprise, and it is crucial that we address the real needs and priorities of our farmer members. Our commitment is to produce safer food and gradually help our members transition to regenerative practices. Our goal is not to win awards but to achieve better results for our members every day we are out in the fields. We want to work with farmers to gradually shift to regenerative practices because we strongly believe in the benefits. The farmer has to be willing to change, and it’s our work to try and convince them. It’s not in our interest to put them at risk of loss of harvest and livelihood in a bid to be recognized as an regenerative or organic farming promoter. PEMU is not an organic organization and is open to not only pesticides and fertilizers but also other technologies like improved seeds and genetics that can help our farmers produce better yields in a safer way. There is no universally accepted definition of regenerative farming. At PEMU, we see it as focusing on improving soil health, increasing biodiversity, and enhancing ecosystem resilience, often incorporating reduced tillage, crop rotation, and integrated pest management (IPM). IPM allows the use of pesticides alongside other control measures. While we appreciate organic farming, it is not our primary focus for now as it is not a need and a priority for our members. Change is a process, and we are dedicated to supporting our farmers through this journey, ensuring they can see the benefits and transition confidently and sustainably. Thank you for your ongoing support and engagement. Together, we can make meaningful progress towards sustainable farming.

Nestlé and Cargill's to Transform Cocoa Shells into Low Carbon Fertiliser In a significant step towards sustainable agriculture, Nestlé UK & Ireland, in collaboration with Cargill, has embarked on an exciting scheme that involves a two-year UK supply chain trial that seeks to exploit the potential of cocoa shells, typically regarded as waste material, to create a low carbon fertiliser. A creative solution for reducing carbon emissions, which also demonstrates the commitment of major food companies to address the current environmental challenges. In the UK, over half of the carbon footprint of wheat production is attributed to fertiliser use. Shockingly, the production and use of conventional fertilisers are responsible for approximately 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Nestlé's pilot program aims to address this issue by providing an alternative to synthetic fertilisers. The key innovation in this initiative lies in the transformation of cocoa shells, a by-product of confectionery production, into valuable capsules that can serve as natural fertilisers. The cocoa shells are sourced from Cargill's York facility, which processes cocoa used in Nestlé chocolate bars like KitKat and Aero. If successful, Nestlé's pilot program could revolutionise the agricultural industry by producing up to 7,000 metric tons of low-carbon cocoa fertiliser. This amount would be sufficient to cover 25% of the wheat grown for Nestlé in the UK. The preliminary trials’ results from Rookery Farm in Norfolk are promising, indicating that the upcycled cocoa shell fertiliser performs just as well as its synthetic counterpart. Farm manager Richard Ling of Rookery Farm has witnessed the positive effects of this innovative fertiliser first-hand. He compared two parts of his field—one treated with cocoa shell fertiliser and the other with conventional fertiliser—and found no significant difference in yield. Ling expressed his satisfaction stating: “It’s a step change to be able to use a fertiliser made from a waste stream and see the same results as using a conventional product”. Matthew Ryan, Regeneration Lead at Nestlé UK & Ireland, emphasises the importance of building resilience in the food system. He notes: “Farmers often find themselves to be among the first groups to be exposed to global issues, and these risks are then borne by the food system we all depend upon”. The collaborative initiative with Cargill represents a meaningful step towards a net-zero future, benefiting farmers, local enterprises, and the environment.

Food companies aren’t all walking the talk on regenerative agriculture, says FAIRR investor network Two thirds of publicly-listed agrifood companies that have talked publicly about the potential of regenerative agriculture “have not put in place any formal quantitative company-wide targets to achieve those ambitions,” according to a new report from investor network FAIRR. There is no universally accepted definition of regenerative agriculture, but initiatives typically focus on carbon removal or sequestration, soil health (soil organic matter, water-holding capacity, micro/macronutrients), biodiversity, watershed health (more efficient use of water and reducing pollution), and farmer livelihoods. In a study of 79 publicly-listed agri-food firms by FAIRR, 50 have talked publicly about the benefits of regenerative agriculture. However, 32 of these 50 have not set formal targets. Even fewer (4/50) have committed funds to incentivize farmers to take up regenerative practices, with notable exceptions including Nestlé, PepsiCo, JBS, and Sodexo, says FAIRR’s director of thematic research and corporate innovation Jo Raven: “Without adequate support for farmers, there can be no successful regenerative agriculture.” She added: “Transitioning away from conventional practices towards regenerative practices creates risk for farmers as it will likely require significant upfront investment, such as new machinery, agronomic support and experimentation, and could impact short-term productivity for farms. “FAIRR’s research shows there are more promises than progress in the agri-food sector,” added chair and founder Jeremy Coller.” Investors will want to see measurable targets that match companies’ stated ambitions on regenerative agriculture if they are to ensure they don’t fall foul of anti-greenwash regulations.” FAIRR: Without an agreed definition, it’s impossible to measure progress or hold companies to account Part of the problem when it comes to holding companies to account, according to Coller, is that there is no internationally agreed definition of regenerative agriculture, which “makes claims hard to substantiate, creating significant risk in terms of incoming regulation and changing reporting frameworks.” He added: “Multinational food giants have filled endless press releases with talk of their commitment to regenerative agriculture, but with no agreed definition of the term it’s impossible to measure what progress they’re making or hold them to account for failing to keep their promises.” While most practitioners agree that being overly prescriptive about what constitutes regenerative practices is unhelpful, it is possible to look at outcomes, from carbon sequestration and agrochemical use to soil health, says FAIRR. Source: agfundernews.

We have good news - because we see a business case for regenerative agriculture emerging from our work. And it’s not the business case we thought we were building. Because it’s not based on customers paying a premium for regeneratively produced ingredients. Given the huge number of large corporates announcing that they want to source 100% regenerative by 20xx, you would think this would be different, but unfortunately that's not the case. The B2B market we operate in, is driven by price - and specifications (quality). It’s also not (yet) based on payments for ecosystem services - or more narrowly defined: carbon credits. Those don’t work yet for farmers in these remote areas because of the high transaction & measurement costs (or low prices - depending on how you look at it). Our current business case is actually based on increased quality. And the good news is: the business case works based on quality alone. Regenerative farming practices have an immediate effect on the quality of produce. And for higher quality, there is a huge and already existing market - which is willing to pay more. With our vegetables in Zambia, we reported earlier in a post that the shelf life of tomatoes increases drastically. This is not just the case with tomatoes, it is also true for maize, onions and all other vegetables we produce. Due to regenerative farming practices in spice farming in Tanzania, we see that there are less diseases on cardamom plants - and therefore we get higher quality cardamom pods. Cinnamon becomes of higher quality when the soil is healthier and can retain more moisture. Tea becomes more tasty when it is grown in soils with high microbial activity. Higher quality translates to a higher price in the market. To fetch a higher price, we don't need to sell the regenerative story - we can just sell a better product. In case you were wondering about the other drivers of the business case: the yield to cost ratio is also good. Usually we see yields actually going up due to increased soil health. Black pepper vines make more berries. Cloves make more buds. On the cost side: the switch to regenerative requires time and labour to be spent on the farm - but this can be compensated for by higher prices and higher yields. Over time, once soil health is high, there is less labour needed - the eocsystem will do a lot of work for itself. The devil is in the details though: the trick is to actually get these high quality ingredients into higher quality markets - and that’s not as straightforward as it may sound - but more about that in another post. #regenerativeagriculture #soilhealth

Agricultural Biologicals Market - Global Outlook & Forecast 2023-2028 View the report: https://bit.ly/3RkYLgc Emerging Organic Farming The demand for organic farming is being propelled by its environmental advantages. Organic farming practices help reduce soil and groundwater contamination by eliminating chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Moreover, organic farming requires fewer non-renewable resources compared to conventional methods. It also promotes the preservation of biodiversity in the soil. According to a report by Columbia Climate School in February 2020, organic farming fosters 30% more biodiversity, consumes 45% less energy and emits 40% less carbon than conventional farming. Expanding Sustainable Agriculture The agricultural sector holds immense importance in the global economy as it employs a significant portion of the global workforce of numerous countries. However, conventional farming practices, characterized by intensive use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, monoculture, and large-scale industrial farming, have had adverse effects on the environment, public health, and food security on a global scale. Sustainable agriculture has emerged as a viable solution to counter these problems. It offers a path towards a more resilient, equitable, and environmentally sustainable food system that benefits all stakeholders. Sustainable agriculture has become increasingly crucial in the present times. Climate change has led to variable weather patterns, increased soil degradation, and declining groundwater levels, posing significant challenges for farmers in meeting the growing food demands of a growing population. Insights by Product The biopesticides product dominated the global agricultural biologicals market in 2022, holding a significant share of over 50% owing to the increasing utilization of biopesticides in soil, foliage, and turfs, particularly in North American and European countries and has contributed to its substantial market share. Key biopesticide products include insect sex pheromones and scented plants, which attract and trap pests. Microbial pesticides, on the other hand, contain active ingredients that effectively control various pest types. Among these, microbial pesticides containing Bacillus thuringiensis strains are widely adopted due to their ability to produce a protein mix that eliminates pests. Companies identified as key players in the market include Novozymes, Bayer, BASF, 1,4GROUP, Inc., 3Bar Bio, Acadian Plant Health™, Agrinos, Corteva Agriscience, UPL, Syngenta, Atlántica Agrícola, W. Neudorff GmbH KG, BioWorks, IPL Biologicals Limited, Andermatt Biocontrol Suisse and Valent BioSciences #biologicals #agriculturalbiologicals #biofertilizer #biopesticide #biostimulant

Regenerative Agriculture Vital to Cultivating Climate Resilience  - Investor network FAIRR releases a first-of-its-kind report on the agri-food sector’s commitment to regenerative agriculture practices.    There is a strong investment case for regenerative agriculture to build resilience to climate change, especially floods and droughts, through its cultivation of healthier soil, Alessia Lenders, Head of Impact at asset manager SLM Partners, told ESG Investor.   SLM Partners is among several investors who have backed a new report from investor network FAIRR analysing commitments on regenerative agriculture by 79 global food and retail giants, worth over US$3 trillion and representing almost a third of the sector.   The report found that 63% of the global agri-food firms publicly referred to the potential of regenerative agriculture as a solution to the climate and biodiversity crises. But of this group, 64%, including Chipotle, Domino’s and Bunge, had not put in place any formal quantitative company-wide targets to achieve those ambitions.   The research also found that there was no internationally agreed definition of ‘regenerative agriculture’ which made claims about it hard to substantiate, creating significant risk in terms of incoming regulation and changing reporting frameworks.   The incoming EU Green Claims Directive, due to come into force in 2026, will put an onus on any food company marketing in the EU to substantiate claims such as those on regenerative agriculture, with the penalty for non-compliance reaching up to 4% of annual turnover. Similarly, new guidance from the UK Advertising Standards Authority (in effect this year) stipulates that any environmental claims must be fully verifiable and substantiated.    Natural defences  Speaking to ESG Investor, Lenders from SLM Partners, which invests in regenerative agriculture businesses, said that while there was no precise definition for regenerative agriculture, there was a set of principles around soil health which were “a starting point”.    She said there was a strong investment case for regenerative agriculture in that it reduced costs by reducing inputs such as fertilisers and organic food could be sold at a premium. She said a major investment case was also climate resilience.   “This is all tied to soil health, because regenerative agriculture is about using less chemicals and understanding the biology of the soil and your farm as a living ecosystem,” she explained.   “Healthier soil will be able capture water and retain more water, so when it floods you can capture that water and keep it on the land for periods when it gets drier.   “It’s important to build soils that can help you deal with the climate extremes that we’re going to get more and more.”  She added that in protecting and building up the natural capital of land, instead of just extracting and depleting it, you avoid “having an asset that is worth less when you’re don

The critical point: wheter or not the shift is urgent: Who will pay the bill? There is a lot of literature, money and efforts regarding this need but the business case is still unclear(in my opinion) for smallholder farmers, at least in Latin America, In our efforts to this transformation, we would need to have a clear and honest answer to this question from them and I meant, not a bonus through a certification scheme but a clear contribution to the production costs and other well-known trade-offs

Regenerative Agriculture! IFOAM Organics Europe offers a clear perspective in its position paper. The term "regenerative agriculture" (RA) is gaining traction, but IFOAM Organics Europe warns of potential misuse. While RA and organic agriculture share sustainability goals, there's a crucial difference: organic standards are legally defined. This ensures genuine environmental and social responsibility. The Challenge of Undefined Practices: The lack of defined practices in RA makes it vulnerable to greenwashing. Companies can rebrand without significant changes, hurting serious players and diluting the true potential of RA: a holistic transformation of the food system, not cherry-picking practices with limited benefits. IFOAM outlines its commitment to achieving genuine regenerative agriculture: * Working to expose companies misusing "regenerative." * Partnering with serious regenerative actors towards shared goals. * Continuing to develop organic practices as a springboard for regenerative agriculture. * Ensuring organic is recognized as the strongest foundation for regenerative claims. * Lobbying for organic inclusion in policies and initiatives promoting regenerative practices. * Developing tools to measure organic benefits for farm improvements and policy decisions. * Adopting a stronger "nature-positive" narrative in organic communications, incorporating elements of the regenerative movement. * Promoting the certification where relevant to advance organic and regenerative focus. * Highlighting the missing principle of "Fairness" in RA to ensure food sovereignty, cooperative ownership, and fair rewards for organic producers. What can we do? Join the conversation and help ensure regenerative translates to real change in our food system! Confused about Regenerative Agriculture? The IFOAM position paper clarifies the link to Organic practices and enables you to make informed choices. Download here:

#goorganic 1. Regenerative agriculture must be organic. 2. Organic agriculture can mitigate climate change. 3. Organic practices preserve natural lands and biodiversity. 4. Organic agriculture benefits human health. #organic #regenerative #agriculture

Trust; it’s the backbone of relationships, business and societies, and always under threat. Having worked in Agricultural pesticides as a plant manager once upon a time, I learned some things that only later I’d come to realize were fabricated storylines, not based on truth. But as happens, great stories become modern myths that endure because the public likes how they fit. Modern myth: We need pesticides to feed the world and combat world hunger. We’d all like to play a part in ending world hunger, so it’s compelling and easy to sign up for this myth. Likely a billion or more did. What a marketing genius!!! No need to drag you though all the holes in this article. A couple of easy ones will do. 1. It is written for/by a seed company. In the Ag world, the only seeds that make real money are GMO seeds designed specifically for pesticide tolerance. Bias? Big time! This is how AgChem does marketing- make it look like an objective news article. 2. World hunger isn’t centered in Europe, UK, or USA. Growing crops in these countries isn’t solving world hunger, it’s driving export sales. Hunger is solved by growing locally and importing minimally because that’s the only affordable way to a sustainable solution. 3. Terms get tossed around recklessly and you aren’t supposed to know the difference. Pesticides kill….. pests! Glyphosate is an herbicide. Herbicides kill weeds and microbes. Weeds and microbes are problems where plants grow too vigorously—not the issue in drought stricken regions where hunger dominates. An estimated 5% of GMO engineered seeds have been developed for soils and climates where it’s hard to grow crops. These crops typically need watering systems and fertilizers to grow well. Weeds are well down the list of threats to yield. Regenerative isn’t about organic certification, it’s about leveraging the power of biology and plant-animal natural interaction. It’s not about farms that look like golf courses, it’s about growing in ways that optimize nutrition and minimally impact the land and surrounding waterways. Regenerative isn’t about putting more money in chemical companies pockets, it’s about paying farmers fair prices and reducing food costs to consumers by taking money away from what conventional farmers spend on premium GMO seeds and Ag chemicals. Okay, I’ll step down from the soapbox now. 📦 https://lnkd.in/dgMwgi4e