Catalogue of Applications

The LEAP catalogue of applications contributes to FAO knowledge sharing and stimulates evidence-based climate action and environmental improvement of  feed and livestock systems.

The catalogue allows any entity using the environmental assessment approaches in the FAO LEAP guidelines to disseminate the outcomes of own work and hence to mainstream innovation and best practices in policy and environmental management.

The catalogue will be updated on a continuous basis. The FAO LEAP Secretariat will select records on periodical basis to inform the FAO COAG Livestock SubCommittee and the Livestock, Climate and Environment (LCE) Community of Action also via the LEAP newsletter reaching more than 1,000 experts and policy makers.

To contribute to the FAO LEAP action, applicants are requested to fill out the reporting template available for download from here, and to submit the compiled form (filling out fields from page 6 to 8 is optional) to [email protected]

This catalogue contains information provided by applicants. No endorsement can be assumed by FAO and its LEAP partners. The applicants are the only responsible for the accuracy and truthfulness of the information in own submission.

1. Assessment of the national sectoral GHGs emissions from New Zealand livestock production

1. Assessment of the national sectoral GHGs emissions from New Zealand livestock production

Organization/Company 

AgResearch

Website url

agresearch.co.nz 

Submission Year

2021

Contact details

Stewart Ledgard  

Financial or implementing partners

Beef + Lamb New Zealand and Meat Industry Association and Ministry for Primary Industries

LEAP guidelines applied

Greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy use from small ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Main focus of the assessment

Livestock production

How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines

National sectoral greenhouse gas inventories/Global, regional, and national environmental assessments. 

 

To provide confidence in choices relating to methodology used (e.g. for allocation, data requirements)

Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment

No

Assessement framework (Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) 

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Impact assessment methods used

GWP100

Major deviations from the LEAP guidelines

No major deviations. However, the study extended to a cradle-to-grave assessment and therefore included retail, consumer and end-of-life stages, which were not explicitly covered in the LEAP Guidelines [covering cradle-to-processing stages only]

Internal or external review    

Internal review and external review by appointed expert/certification/verification body

Results/Findings

Carbon footprint per kg meat varied between approximately 13-15 kg CO2-equivalent/kg meat for a cradle-to-grave assessment for NZ sheep meat to different countries. Comparisons over time revealed a significant decrease in carbon footprint associated with increased sheep productivity

Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed

Not assessed

Cost benefit analysis 

Not applicable

Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation

Not applicable

Testimony video clip

To be shared

Links

Final reports are going through last peer-review process, but will be made available via NZ sector websites

2. Assessment of the environmental sustainability of Canadian beef production systems

2. Assessment of the environmental sustainability of Canadian beef production systems

Livestock species 

Beef 

Country

Canada

Organization/business name

Canada- Agriculture and Agri-Food  Canada

Submission Year

2021

Contact details

Tim McAllister 

Financial or implementing partners

Canada Beef Cattle Research Council/ Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef production

LEAP guidelines

Environmental performance of feed additives in livestock supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy use from small ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Water use in livestock production systems and supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Measuring and modelling soil carbon stocks and stock changes in livestock production systems: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Nutrient flows and associated environmental impacts in livestock supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Biodiversity and the livestock sector: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Principles for the assessment of livestock impacts on biodiversity (Version 1)

Additional methodology used in the environmental assessment

Holos Greenhouse Gas Model
Introductory Carbon Balance Model
IPCC methodology 

Main focus of the assessment

Feed and livestock production. Environmental assessment of the sustainability of beef production systems including GHG emissions, feed production, biodiversity, water consumption, nutrient flows.

How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines

Environmental management or/and strategy-making at the producer level/Calculators and tools enabling to assess environmental performance improvement over time/ Policymaking/Research. 

 

Procedures to define and assess the sustainability of Canadian Beef Cattle production including benchmarking and identification of best management practices 

Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment

Used to generate outputs for research reports and scientific publications.

Assessement framework 

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)

Major deviations from the LEAP guideline

No major deviations. 

Internal or external review  

External review

Results/Findings                                                                  
Description and external links                                 

EM Boonstra, TA McAllister, GO Ribeiro, M Cordeiro, A Alemu, G Crow, K Ominski (2020) 173 Greenhouse gas emissions and land use associated with the removal of growth-enhancing technologies from backgrounding and finishing cattle in Canada: A case study. Journal of Animal Science 98 (Supplement_4), 125-126.

C Li, CM Romero, J Owens, GO Ribeiro, T McAllister, E Okine, X Hao (2019) Novel strategies for biochar application to densely populated livestock regions in North America-Impacts on soil nutrient cycling and greenhouse gas emissions. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts 2019, B33G-2546.

SP Robinson, A Saleem, K Ominski, K Wittenberg, TA McAllister, E McGeough (2019) 82 Effect of by-product feed supplementation of a hay-based diet on rumen fermentation, diet digestibility, methane production and protozoal population in an artificial rumen (RUSITEC). Journal of Animal Science 97 (Supplement 3), 73-73.

S Terry, G Ribeiro, R Gruninger, A Chaves, K Beauchemin, E Okine, TA McAllister (2019)  98 Effect of engineered biocarbon on rumen fermentation, nutrient digestibility, methane emissions, and rumen microbiota in beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science 97 (Supplement_3), 82-83.

P Tamayao, TA McAllister, K Ominski, G Ribeiro, E Okine, A Saleem, E McGeough (2019) 81 Effects of engineered biocarbons on total gas and methane production, rumen fermentation and microbial protein synthesis in a semi continuous fermentation system (RUSITEC). Journal of Animal Science 97 (Suppl 3), 72.

S Terry, G Ribeiro Jr, R Gruninger, M Hünerberg, P Sheng, A Chaves, K Beauchemin, J Burlet, T McAllister (2018) 364 Effect of humic substances on rumen fermentation, nutrient digestibility, methane emissions and rumen microbiota in beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science 96 (suppl_3), 181-182.

T McAllister, A Saleem, G Ribeiro Jr, W Yang, T Ran, K Beauchemin, E McGeough, K Ominski, E Okine (2018) 102 Effect of engineered biocarbon on rumen fermentation, microbial protein synthesis and methane production in an artificial rumen (RUSITEC) fed a high forage diet. Journal of Animal Science 96 (suppl_3), 411-411.

Q Huang, K Peng, A Iwaasa, M Schellenberg, T McAllister, Y Wang (2018) PSXI-26 Effects of condensed tannins in purple prairie and white prairie clover on ruminal fermentation and methane production in vitro. Journal of Animal Science 96 (suppl_3), 422-422.

Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed

Not assessed

Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation

 

Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation

Not assessed

Testimony video clip

Not provided

3. Quantifying the effects of feed additives on the environmental footprint of animal production

3. Quantifying the effects of feed additives on the environmental footprint of animal production

Livestock species

Broiler chicken, dairy cows and pigs

Region/Country

Netherlands and Switzerland

Organization/business name

Blonk and DSM Nutritional Products

Website url

https://blonkconsultants.nl and www.dsm.com

Submission Year

2021

Contact name

Hans Blonk
Sabine Van Cauwenberghe 

Financial or implementing partners

None

FAO LEAP guidelines

Environmental performance of feed additives in livestock supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy use from poultry supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Environmental performance of pig supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Nutrient flows and associated environmental impacts in livestock supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment

Product Environmental Footprint Category 2 Rules Guidance – version 6.3
Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules for Dairy Products
PEFCR Feed for food producing animals
Footprint Category Rules Red Meat
ISO 14040/44
WBCSD for feed additives manufacturing

Main focus of the assessment

Livestock production. Changed environmental impact of livestock production with the use of feed additives using full LCA perspective

How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines

Environmental management or/and strategy-making at the producer level. Intervention at production level, including innovation. Intervention at system level (circular bio-economy)

 

The study explores, from a methodological standpoint, the applicability of the sector LCA guidelines (FAO LEAP and/or EC PEF) to modelling nutritional interventions based on the use of feed additives). To that end, the effects on animal performance of a diverse set of nutritional interventions (n=14 in total) including the use of feed enzymes, vitamins, carotenoids, and eubiotics have been documented via an extensive literature review (along with the FAO LEAP Guidelines for feed additives) and further translated into potential effects observable at farm level. Three terrestrial target species were studied: broiler chickens, dairy cows, and fattening pigs. The reference systems were Dutch and Belgian. The methodological exploration was reviewed by external experts with respect to ISO 14044 requirements for LCA.
The study verifies the applicability of the available sector LCA guidelines to evaluate nutritional interventions improving animal productivity, animal health, lifetime performance or emissions. It confirms the potential of nutritional interventions, and feed additives in particular, to improve the footprint of animal production.

Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment

No

Assessement framework (Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) 

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Impact assessment methods used

The main purpose of the road-testing study was to explore, from a methodological standpoint, the applicability of the sector LCA guidelines (FAO LEAP and/or EC PEF) to modelling nutritional interventions (specifically, the use of feed additives). To that end, the effects on animal performance of a diverse set of nutritional interventions (n=14 in total) including the use of feed enzymes, vitamins, carotenoids, and eubiotics have been documented via an extensive literature review (along with the FAO LEAP Guidelines for feed additives) and further translated into potential effects observable at farm level. Three terrestrial target species were studied: broiler chickens, dairy cows, and fattening pigs. The reference systems were Dutch and Belgian. The methodological exploration was reviewed by external experts with respect to ISO 14044 requirements for LCA.

Major deviations from the LEAP guideline

Main deviations from the LEAP guidelines are:
- use of economic allocation for broiler and pig breeding farms (between egg/spent-parents, sow/piglet), instead of biophysical allocation. This was because 1) the study focused on fattening stages rather than on breeding 2) data for one-day chicken and piglet was based on background databases (Agri-footprint 5 - economic).
- use of residual approach for manure is a deviation from the LEAP nutrient flow and LEAP feed additive guidelines. Although, in the sensitivity assessment we explored the impact and concluded that also the change of impact at manure application leaving the animal farm should be included. The reason for our approach was that this was supported by some LEAP guidelines (poultry, pig and large ruminants), while others promote the full systems change approach where allocation to manure may be involved (nutrients and additives).

Internal or external review

External, ISO compliant review by appointed expert/certification/verification body.

Results/Findings

The study confirms the applicability of the available sector LCA guidelines to evaluate nutritional interventions for improving animal productivity, animal health, lifetime performance or emissions. Nevertheless, more detailed guidance and more consistency between the guidelines (PEF and LEAP) would be helpful.
The road testing allowed identifying areas where the existing guidelines should be made more specific in order to confer more robustness to the LCA outcomes. This was the case, in particular, for the accounting of the variability and uncertainty when translating complex zootechnical dynamics in an LCA model. It was also true with respect to accounting for changes in the production and composition of manure leaving the farm and for the modelling of nutritional interventions that act on product quality and subsequent stages in the value chain. The study also highlights the pivotal role of feed formulations in determining estimated impacts. The way these dilemmas are managed by LCA experts may affect the outcome to a large extent, hence the need for clearer guidance.
The study also confirmed that the use of feed additives has a positive environmental impact over the entire lifecycle. Except in one case (for a product with a high inclusion rate), the environmental impact of the production of feed additives is confirmed to be relatively negligible compared to the positive impacts delivered, which can amount to up to a 10% improvement (cumulative effect for some impacts and some species) as per our assessment.
Improvement in productivity and specific reduction of emissions confirm feed additive concrete prospects with regards to the reduction of livestock footprint and are relatively easy to model. Environmental benefits provided by feed enzymes on feed formulation requires extended information on feed recipes to be properly generalized. Our study provides evidence for the need to integrate the footprint of ingredients as an optimization criteria, rather than as a calculated outcome, to fully capture the potential of feed enzymes to minimize environmental impact.  It also confirms the significance of the contribution of phytase to abate phosphorus and nitrogen related impacts on farm. Finally, feed additive solutions supporting the lifetime performance of the animals (longevity, fertility, health status) also indicate a potential for environmental impact mitigation, although requiring sophisticated modelling of herd/flock dynamics.

Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed

Environmental implications (e.g., environmental risk assessment) where not assessed in the study. Mid-point LCA results change due to the use of additives were calculated in case studies (with the main goal of testing LCA methodology framework). The study also confirmed that the use of feed additives has a positive environmental impact over the entire lifecycle. Except in one case (for a product with a high inclusion rate), the environmental impact of the production of feed additives is confirmed to be relatively negligible compared to the positive impacts delivered, which can amount to up to a 10% improvement (cumulative effect for some impacts and some species) as per our assessment.

Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation

It was not assessed explicitly, but all studied interventions are realistic from a farm business perspective (positive return of investment)

Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation

All the interventions evaluated resort to supplementation with feed additives, all being evaluated as safe and efficacious by EU or US safety agencies, for example

Testimony video clip

Not provided

Promotional video clip and links

Not provided

Links

The applicability of LCA guidelines to model the effects of feed additives on the environmental footprint of animal production

4. Enviromental assessment of intergrated livestock production at farm level

4. Enviromental assessment of intergrated livestock production at farm level

Livestock species 

Beef and dairy 

Region/Country

The guidelines have been used in Italy often contextually with the use of the partners from EU and non-EU countries.

Organization/business name


Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali, Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l'analisi dell'economia agraria (CREA), Italy

Website url

https://www.politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/202 https://www.crea.gov.it/ 

Submission Year

2021

Contact name

David Meo Zilio

Financial or implementing partners

There were several implementing partners consisting of research and projects partners as well as farmers and stakeholders. CREA is very active in that field and participates to various scientific projects regarding livestock sustainability, life cycle assessment, water use in livestock production, supply chains and so on. LEAP guidelines are the standard reference.

FAO LEAP guidelines

Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Water use in livestock production systems and supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment

FIL-IDF (2015)

Main focus of the assessment

Livestock production/Integrated production at farm level

How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines

Environmental management or/and strategy-making at the producer level. Sustainable sourcing of feed and livestock. Global, regional, and national environmental assessments.
Environmental reporting system at business level.
Product-oriented environmental communication (e.g. low-carbon livestock, environmental footprint). Calculators and tools enabling to assess environmental performance improvement over time. Research.

 

Projects regarding aforementioned options:

- ERA-Net Cofund SusAn: Sustainbeef (grantnr 696231), funded by SPW-Wallonia, ANR, BMEL, DAFM/Taegasc and MiPAAF
- LIFE+: BEEF CARBON (LIFE14 CCM/FR/001125), funded by EU
- VIAAI funded by Italian Ministry of Agriculture (MiPAAF)
- VaLatteBio funded by Italian Ministry of Agriculture (MiPAAF)
- “Utilizzo di ceppi atossigeni di Aspergillus flavus e di consorzi microbici micorrizzati per la riduzione del contenuto di micotossine del mais”. National rural development programme – Italy 2014-2020, Lombardia Region. Final conference 2/04/2019
- Sviluppo ed integrazione tecnologica di una piattaforma high-throughtput per il miglioramento sostenibile dei processi produttivi delle filiere dell’agroalimentare. Lombardia Region.
- La produzione del latte in Lombardia verso la zootecnia digitale e di precisione – LATTE DIGITALE. Lombardia Region

Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment

No

Assessement framework (Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) 

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA),Water productivity (WP)

Impact assessment methods used 
Further details

ILCD; ReCiPe; AWARE; BWSI

Major deviations from the LEAP guideline

 

Internal or external review 

Internal review, External ISO compliant review by appointed expert/certification/verification body.

Results/Findings                           

CREA is committed to improving environmental sustainability, in line with the climate objectives of the European Union as part of the Green New Deal and with the objective of fighting change which is one of the nine specific objectives of the CAP 2023 2027. CREA-Animal Production and Aquaculture Centre was engaged in LIFE project (BEEF CARBON) which contributed to disseminate the strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from beef farms in the major European producing countries (France, Ireland, Italy and Spain). This project has shown that it is possible to significantly reduce the carbon footprint of beef by adopting several techniques now available. The project also laid the foundations for a second LIFE (CARBON FARMING) project, just approved, aimed at establishing a public-private incentive system for the application of these strategies. There are various qualifying aspects of this new activity: the adoption, for example, of a common system among six European countries of a system of evaluation, verification and communication of the results deriving from the application of best practices or the organization of a system trading in emission reduction or carbon sequestration allowances. This activity is carried out in collaboration with some researchers of the Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy of CREA. In the beef sector, CREA-ZA has just concluded the Sustainbeef project, within the framework of the SusAn program. The aim was the reduction of the competition between humans and animals for edible food resources. The main systems of beef production in Europe were characterized. Various indicators of environmental, economic and social sustainability were identified and the impact related to the introduction of various technological or organizational innovations assessed, through an interaction of the actors of the entire supply chain. 

Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed

Not assessed

Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation

Not assessed

Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation

Not assessed

Testimony video clip

Not applicable

Promotional video clip and links

Not applicable

5. Global assessment of livestock systems

5. Global assessment of livestock systems

Livestock species 

Livestock 

Region/Country

Global level country by country

Organization/business name

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

Website url

http://www.fao.org/gleam/en/

Submission Year

2021

Contact name

Timothy P. Robinson 

FAO LEAP guidelines

Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy use from poultry supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy use from small ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Environmental performance of pig supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) Nutrient flows and associated environmental impacts in livestock supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4;
2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories;
EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook - 2016;
Vonk et al., 2016, Methodology for estimating emissions from agriculture in the
Netherlands. Calculations of CH4, NH3, N2O, NOx, PM10, PM2.5 and CO2 with the National Emission Model for Agriculture (NEMA).

Main focus of the assessment

Feed and livestock production. Livestock products processing.

How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines

Sustainable sourcing of feed and livestock. National sectoral greenhouse gas inventories.
Global, regional, and national environmental assessments.

Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment

No

Assessement framework
(Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) 

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ;  Nutrient use efficiency (NUE)

Impact assessment methods used

GWP100 with carbon feedbacks from AR5 IPCC report (2014)

Major deviations from the LEAP guideline

Classification of technical outputs in co-products, residues and waste doesn't match with the LEAP guidelines due to the lack of data on economic value of technical outputs.
The allocation of GHGs doesn't consider wealth management as technical output because of lack of data

Internal or external review  

Internal review.
External review by appointed expert/certification/verification body

Results/Findings

GLEAM version  3.0 assessment ongoing. Results to be inserted when available.

Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed

Not assessed

Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation

Not applicable

Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation

Not applicable

Inventory data sharing

Yes, data can be shared upon request.

Testimony video clip

Not applicable

Promotional video clip and links

Not applicable

Links

NOTE: new materials and resources will be added as soon as available

6. Assessment involving farmers in reducing GHGs emissions and increasing carbon sequestration

6. Assessment involving farmers in reducing GHGs emissions and increasing carbon sequestration

Livestock species 

Dairy, beef and sheep

Region/ Country

France (By the end of 2021, CAP’2ER® will be developed for European countries)

Organization/business name

Institut de l’Elevage – French Livestock Institute, France

Website url

http://idele.fr/

Submission Year

2021

Contact details

Jean Baptiste Dolle

Financial or implementing partners

Partners who are implementing CAP’2ER® in farms:
-1 200 advisers have been trained for applying CAP’2ER® tool
-300 companies are using the tool: producer associations, advice companies, cooperatives, milk&beef enterprises.
Financial partners who are supporting CAP’2ER® audits in farms are French dairy and meat boards, regional councils, milk&beef companies, Ministry of agriculture, European commission, climate funds from carbon offset buyers (public&private)

LEAP guidelines

Environmental performance of feed additives in livestock supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy use from small ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Water use in livestock production systems and supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Measuring and modelling soil carbon stocks and stock changes in livestock production systems: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Biodiversity and the livestock sector: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Principles for the assessment of livestock impacts on biodiversity (Version 1) Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment

IPCC tier 2, tier 3, EU and national database, IDF guideline

Main focus of the assessment

Livestock production. Integrated production at farm level.

How the country/organization has used the LEAP guidelines

Environmental management or/and strategy-making at the producer level.
Sustainable sourcing of feed and livestock. Global, regional, and national environmental assessments.
Environmental reporting system at business level.
Product-oriented environmental communication. Calculators and tools enabling to assess environmental performance improvement over time.
Intervention at production level, including innovation. Research

Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment

The assessment is used for involving farmers in reducing GHG emissions & increasing carbon sequestration and answering sectors commitments.
- Dairy sector – LOW CARBON DAIRY FARM initiative: reducing carbon footprint by 20% in 2025 in comparison to 2015
- Beef sector – BEEF CARBON initiative: reducing carbon footprint by 15% in 2025 in comparison to 2015
- Sheep sector – GREEN SHEEP initiative: reducing carbon footprint by 12% in 2030 in comparison to 2020

Assessement framework

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This is a cradle to farm gate LCA assessment (considering feed purchased, fertilizers, energy, on-site emissions). The methodology concerns the calculation of GHGs emissions/ carbon sequestrationn and other environmental burdens (wtaer quality, air quality, energy, biodiversity)

Impact assessment methods used

 

Major deviations from the LEAP guideline

None

Internal or external review

External review by accredited certification/verification body

Results/Findings

22 400 CAP’2ER® audits have been done in ruminant production systems and permitted to create a national observatory (national database)
To define carbon footprint references in milk, beef, sheep, goat production for different production systems (% maize, % grass, etc.) in contrasted regions
To identify and characterize mitigation practices (# 40 practices)
To define baseline scenarios and improvement scenarios for quantifying GHG reductions and carbon sequestration increases in tons CO2 equivalent for farmers involved in carbon credit mechanism.

Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed

Adaptation to climate change

Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation

Some techniques are cost effective and some of them represent an extra cost. The economic assessment is done by advisers when they build the mitigation action plan (after the farm audit CAP’2ER®)

Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation

Not applicable

Inventory data sharing

The national CAP’2ER® database includes activity data and environmental results for each farm involved.
We are not able to give a free access to the database but we can share generic results by production systems, regions.

Testimony video clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGkzLlasjAI 

Promotional video clip and links

Not applicable

Links

 

7. LCA database on feed production

7. LCA database on feed production

Livestock species 

Multiple

Country

Global 

Organization/business name

Global Feed LCA Institute (GFLI)

Website url

https://globalfeedlca.org

Submission Year

2021

Contact name

Delanie Kellon, Arjen Voortman

Region/Country

The database currently includes regional datasets from: Canada; Europe and USA, and sectoral datasets from European Fat Processors and Renderers Association (EFPRA).

Financial or implementing partners

The founding associations (AFIA, ANAC, FEFAC, IFIF) and consortium partners funded the original GFLI project, the development of the database, and the collection and integration of the first data-in projects.. Founding members of the non-profit Institute legally registered in USA:
AFIA – American Feed Industry Association
ANAC – Animal Nutrition Association of Canada
FEFAC – European Feed Manufacturers’ Federation
IFIF – International Feed Industry Federation
NSF – Norwegian Seafood Federation

FAO LEAP guidelines

Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment

EU PEF for Feed for Food Producing Animals

Main focus of the assessment

Feed production

How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines

Life cycle databases

Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment

No

Assessement framework
(Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) 

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Major deviations from the LEAP guideline

Not stated

Internal or external review

Internal review
External review by appointed expert/certification/verification body

Results/Findings

The result of the application of the “Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: Guidelines for assessment” was the development of the GFLI Methodology.The GFLI database consists of the LCA of raw materials from various regions in the world. To ensure the quality and standardization of the data, GFLI formed a FAO-LEAP and EU-PEF compliant methodology with the following inclusions to the dataset. The system boundary is cradle-to-farm gate, which includes all life cycle stages up to the delivery of the feed to the farm, as well as feed mill operations and logistics. With three allocations at co-production, which are economic, mass dry matter, and energy content and supporting 15 impact categories, the database allows meaningful environmental assessment of animal nutrition products and stimulate continuous improvement of the environmental performance in the animal nutrition and food industry. GFLI’s methodology is built on four reference documents to adhere to globally standardized guidelines of FAO and EU standards, namely the FAO LEAP feed guidelines (2016), LEAP feed additives guidelines (2020), Feed PEF database methodology (2017), and Feed PEFCR (2018). The methodology  is followed in order to integrate datasets into the GFLI database (https://globalfeedlca.org/gfli-database/gfli-database-tool/).

Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed

Not assessed

Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation

Not applicable

Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation

Not applicable

Inventory data sharing

GFLI’s aggregated impact (LCIA) and inventory (LCI) data is publicly available for free download from the GFLI website (https://globalfeedlca.org/gfli-database/gfli-database-tool/) after accepting the conditions of the GFLI End User License Agreement (EULA). 

Testimony video clip

Not provided

Promotional video clip and links

Not yet available

Links

https://globalfeedlca.org/gfli-database/methodology-scope/
https://globalfeedlca.org/gfli-database/gfli-database-tool/
https://globalfeedlca.org/

8. Environmental assessment of the livestock sector

8. Environmental assessment of the livestock sector

Livestock species 

Dairy, beef, chicken and sheep

Region/Country

Canada

Organization/business name

Groupe AGÉCO, Canada

Website url

http://www.groupeageco.ca/en/

Submission Year

2021

Contact name

Hugues Imbeault-Tétreault

Financial or implementing partners

Dairy Farmers of Canada, Éleveurs de porcs du Québec, Chicken Farmers of Canada, Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, Ontario Sheep

FAO LEAP guidelines

Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy use from poultry supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy use from small ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Environmental performance of pig supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment

ISO 14044, ISO 14067, IDF guidelines, previous FAO LCA guidelines, IPCC 2006, ISO 14046

Main focus of the assessment

Feed and livestock production

How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines

Global, regional, and national environmental assessments. Product-oriented environmental communication (e.g. low-carbon livestock, environmental footprint).
Life cycle databases. Research

Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment

No

Assessement framework
(Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) 

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Impact assessment methods used  Further details

ReCiPe

Major deviations from the LEAP guideline

No

Internal or external review

Internal review

Results/Findings

The 2018 study, conducted by Groupe AGECO, a firm specializing in agri-food economy and corporate responsibility, characterizes the environmental performance of Canadian milk production in 2016 and compares it with data from 2011. It assesses several environmental issues, including carbon footprint, water consumption, and land use. Results indicate that environmentally-friendly farm practices, such as more crop rotations, better feed, reduced tillage and precision agriculture techniques, as well as increased milk production per cow explain improvements in those environmental profiles. In fact, the quantity of milk produced per cow has increased by 13% from 2011 to 2016. (https://dairyfarmersofcanada.ca/en/dairy-in-canada/news-releases/ageco-study-results-reveal-improved-environmental-impact-and-efficiency-canadian-milk-production)

Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed

Not assessed

Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation

Not applicable

Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation

Not applicable

Testimony video clip

Not applicable

Promotional video clip and links

Not applicable

Links

https://dairyfarmersofcanada.ca/
https://www.chickenfarmers.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/CFC_ENG_F_Simple.pdf
https://www.leseleveursdeporcsduquebec.com/

9. Adaptation strategies for improved water management in an organic dairy farm in Brandenburg, Germany

9. Adaptation strategies for improved water management in an organic dairy farm in Brandenburg, Germany

Livestock species 

Dairy 

Country

Germany

Organization/business name

Humboldt, Germany

Website url

https://www.hu-berlin.de/en?set_language=en

Submission Year

2021

Contact name

Katrin Drastig, Stella Birk 

Region/Country

Brandenburg, Germany

Financial or implementing partners

Not stated

FAO LEAP guidelines

Water use in livestock production systems and supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment

Not stated 

Main focus of the assessment

Feed and livestock production. 

How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines

Research (Bachelor thesis in German language)

Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment

Not applicable

Assessement framework (Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) 

Water productivity (WP)

Impact assessment methods used

The topic of this bachelor's thesis was to analyse a case study applying methods of the LEAP Water TAG  guidelines to assess potential adaption strategies to raise water productivity and reduce water use  impact of livestock production systems and supply chains. Water productivty was used for an evaluation  basis for improving the use of water in the organic dairy farm in Brandenburg (Germany)

Major deviations from the LEAP guideline

The water scarcity factor (WSF) was not calculated

Internal or external review

Internal review

Results/Findings

In summary, the LEAP guidelines for evaluation and the AgroHyd farm model are suitable for calculating  the water productivity of an organic farm. Although this work does not assess the contribution to regional water scarcity, this contribution is expected to be relatively small due to the extensive production system.

Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed

Not assessed

Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation

Not applicable

Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation

Not applicable

Testimony video clip

Not applicable

Promotional video clip and links

Not applicable

10. Assessment of the carbon footprint, aquatic eutrophication and ecotoxicology from feed production

10. Assessment of the carbon footprint, aquatic eutrophication and ecotoxicology from feed production

Livestock Species

Large ruminants

Region/Country

CoUruguay; Departments of Durazno, Flores, Rivera, Salto.

Organization/business name

Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA), Uruguay

Website url

http://inia.uy/

Submission Year

2021

Contact name

Leonidas Carrasco-Letelier

Financial or implementing partners

UFFIP Project developed by Plan Agropecuario, INIA, Ministry and AgResearch (New Zealand)

FAO LEAP guidelines

Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Nutrient flows and associated environmental impacts in livestock supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment

We followed the methodology suggested by the FAO LEAP guidelines. First, we organized all the  information of LCI by sub-systems on a spreadsheet and, second, the information was transferred to  OpenLCA. At the case that were possible, we used primary data and for secondary data we used Agribalyse database.  We used an allocation based on mass balance (physical allocation procedure) for each subsystem used for produce a kind of feed

Main focus of the assessment

Feed production

How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines

Environmental management or/and strategy-making at the producer level. Life cycle databases. Intervention at production level, including innovation. Research.

 

To improve future agricultural inputs of this kind of production

Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment

No

Assessement framework
(Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) 

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Impact assessment methods

We focused our impact assessment on climate change (carbon footprint), aquatic eutrophication and ecotoxicology

Major deviations from the LEAP guideline

Three were the deviations from the FAO LEAP guidelines.
First, the functional unit used was “kilocalories of dry matter annually available per animal ”. In this way, it was possible to compare the environmental impacts linked with different schemes of feedings. Second, we did not consider the feeding operations between feed production on farm and the animal mouth because we set our system boundary when the biomass is available on farm. This choice was made to allow comparisons of feed availability on farm. Further, in our case study with extensive grazing, the relative contribution of feeding operations is less than 1 % of overall environmental footprints; a situation that can change if the same feed would be used in a feedlot system. Third, we assessed the environmental impacts on global warming, potential eutrophication and ecotoxicology impacts (terrestrial and freshwater); because these are impact that can be assessed locally in the short term. Acidification and land occupation are important impacts, but we are not sure that the impact factors available in secondary databases represent our environmental conditions (native grassland used for extensive grazing)

Internal or external review

Internal review

Results/Findings

We compared two representative cattle production systems. For this study, we starting from analyzing existing environmental database of selected farms, from which  3 representative farms with two degrees of intensification were chosen:  extensive grazing and improved extensive grazing, the two major cattle production systems at country level.
The first estimation of carbon footprint (CF) of feed supply showed that intensification duplicates the value of kg CO2-eq emissions per hectare and by kcal of feed potentially allocated per animal. The same assessment run in OpenLCA, using Agrybalyse database and global warming potential for 100 years (IPCC, 2013), showed that mean and  median values of improved extensive system were seven and five times higher than the respective values of traditional extensive grazing systems. These increases were statistically different and these can be explained by the larger use of production inputs such as fertilizers and feed supplements.
The potential freshwater eutrophication was double in improved extensive grazing but without a statistical difference. Ecotoxicology footprints are larger in improved grazing systems, but only sediment ecotoxicology footprint showed statistical differences by the increase of 1,293 times of improved extensive grazing system. The differences in eutrophication and ecotoxicology values will have to be checked locally with field studies in the future because assessment results can overestimate the actual environmental impacts as the used impact factors were developed for freshwater ecosystem from another geographical area.

Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed

INIA Uruguay is running now a research project granted by the National Agency of Research and Innovation for the comparison of ecotoxicological footprint assessments with ecotoxicological assessment of local ecosystems related to cropping rotation systems.

Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation

This assessment will allow an improvement on farm’s inputs records first, a first identification of hotspot to work on the reduction of carbon footprints.

Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation

In any case, an intervention/innovation always will go in the direction that improves the  public health, ecosystem health and food security; according the current legal regulation of Uruguay

Inventory data sharing

All data will be shared with FAO after these estimations are published in a peer-reviewed journal

Testimony video clip

 Not applicable

Promotional video clip and links

 Not applicable

Links

11. Analysis of land use management, biodiversity and livestock

11. Analysis of land use management, biodiversity and livestock

Livestock species 

Cattle, sheep

Region/Country

Uruguay

Organization/business name

Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA), Uruguay

Website url

http://inia.uy/

Submission Year

2021

Contact name

Oscar Blumetto

Financial or implementing partners

Research project supported by INIA and INAC

FAO LEAP guidelines

Biodiversity and the livestock sector: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment

Not stated

Main focus of the assessment

Livestock production. The case study was conducted on farms with a mixed livestock system (cows and sheep) in areas ranging between 2000 and 5000 hectares. Three farms had 100% production based on rangeland (natural grasslands with different proportion of shrubs, isolated trees and small groups of trees) while the other three had 30% of their area with sown pastures.

How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines

Environmental management or/and strategy-making at the producer level. Product-oriented environmental communication (e.g. low-carbon livestock, environmental footprint). Research.

Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment

No

Assessement framework
(Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) 

Pressure State Response (PSR) 

Impact assessment methods used  Further details

As recommended for local assessment, the Pressure-StateResponse framework was applied. The whole recommended list of indicators in the LEAP biodiversity guidelines was used, and additional indicators were added. 

Major deviations from the LEAP guideline

Not stated

Internal or external review

Internal review

Results/Findings

The application of ecosystem integrity index (EII) gave an overview of the ecosystem state and showed global values ranging from 3.1 to 4.0 as displayed in Figure 1. There are variations between paddocks within every farm, and EEI is a bit lower in farms with 30 % of pastures (B, E and F). Nevertheless, the connectivity of different ecosystems is still good for all the farms. Regarding to wildlife communities, 196 species of birds were recorded overall, 26 of these species are included in priority conservation lists (Soutullo et al, 2013). We recorded 162 species for natural grasslands, 89 species in sown pastures and 90 species in natural forests, 16 of which are exclusive from this environment.
Spiders were represented by 79 species in all farms, and two of them are in the Uruguayan priority species list for spider conservation importance (Ghione et al. 2017). The species richness and diversity of spiders was clearly higher in natural grasslands (S: 74; H´ diversity index: 2.97) comparing to sown pastures (S: 45; H´ diversity index: 2.75).
A total of 35 species of fish were collected, with 20 species in the most diverse stream and 4 species in the least diverse. Ten of the recorded species are considered priority for conservation (Soutullo et al, 2013)
Analysis of Guidelines applicability
The application of the different indicators had three main sources of information: (1) satellite images and pre-existing mapping, (2) productive records of the farmers and (3) field work to survey the different wildlife groups. The information required was adequately available and had high quality levels. The evaluation of state indicators required a significant investment of time of several specialists and varied operational resources (as travelling costs and laboratory analysis).

Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed

This work is the first road testing of this guide in local level analysis (farm or landscape). The set of recommended indicators published in the public review version, was applied without technical problems. Both general information and farmer individual data were adequately accessible and it was also possible to collect data on pressure or response indicators. However, these indicators have relative low value if we do not have adequate state indicators to measure the consequences of management measures taken (response) or land uses and management of production systems (pressures). The state indicators are only three: species richness or diversity, particular species (with high conservation value) and biological indicators of water quality. These indicators have really a wide spectrum of possible applications related to variables or taxonomic groups to investigate, but then, the results delivered depends on how comprehensive the study is conducted. In our case, the inclusion of flora (herbaceous and woody), birds, fishes and spiders, provides a wide overview of plants, vertebrates and invertebrates. These kinds of studies are very demanding, in time and money, to carry out. Every group requires a certain number of specialists. Some data can be recorded in one go, but most of them need multiple field visits, often seasonal assessments. The EII is a less demanding state indicator at ecosystem level, which is compatible with a life cycle thinking approach, provided its feature to also look into off-farm feed production. Nevertheless, it persists the necessity of obtaining some information at species or community level.
Finally, we consider that the LEAP´s biodiversity assessment guidelines is a useful tool to evaluate the interaction of production system with the environment, and to plan management, accordingly. It is necessary to find the adequate amount of resources for such comprehensive and in-depth studies. Our case studies found high richness and diversity in the systems investigated, which demonstrates the importance of keeping the same grazing systems over time to maintain habitat for wildlife species. The results about communities of birds or spiders also showed that substitution of natural grasslands by pastures could reduce species richness and diversity. Therefore, such production intensification has to be carefully studied in order not to compromise the sustainability of the ecosystems concerned.

Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation

 Not applicable

Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation

 Not applicable

Testimony video clip

 Not applicable

Promotional video clip and links

 Not applicable

Links

Wil be available as scientific publication and thesis document. Some results will be presented as oral presentation at IRC-IGC 2021, Kenya

12. Environmental footprint methodology development

12. Environmental footprint methodology development

Livestock species 

Multiple

Region/Country

European Union

Organization/business name

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Unit D3, LCA team

Website url

https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

Submission Year

2021

Contact name

Simone Fazio

Financial or implementing partners

No

FAO LEAP guidelines

Environmental performance of feed additives in livestock supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
 Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy use from small ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Water use in livestock production systems and supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Nutrient flows and associated environmental impacts in livestock supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Biodiversity and the livestock sector: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment

Feed additives, Water, Nutrients and Biodiversity  are now under evaluation as possible inputs in the framework of the Agriculture Working Group of the Technical Advisory Board (TAB of the Environmental Footprint - EF), in order to improve modelling in agricultural systems in the EF framework.

Main focus of the assessment

Methodological integration in the framework of the Environmental Footprint (EF) scheme. The LEAP guidelines are applied (or evaluated) as methodological sources for the improvement of modelling in the framework of the Environmental Footprint method update.

How the country/organization has used the LEAP guidelines

Product-oriented environmental communication (e.g. low-carbon livestock, environmental footprint). Life cycle databases. Policymaking.
Research. 

 

The guidelines are either partly implemented in the current EF method report or discussed as options for improvement of modelling in the EF scheme.

Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment

No

Assessement framework
(Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) 

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Impact assessment methods used

The LEAP guidelines are so far used in the EF scheme more at the level of modelling, the implementation at the impact assessment level is under discussion within the Agricultural Working Group of the EF TAB, where also further modelling issues are under discussion.

Major deviations from the LEAP guideline

The guides were not adopted as such. The implementation of specific points in LEAP guidelines have been implemented to solve specific issues in EF method, particularly for handling multi-functional processes in agriculture and averaging data to deal with crop seasonality, the rules described in the LEAP guideline shall be followed: Environmental performance of animal  feeds supply  chains (pages 36-43). Additionally, for Allocation within the farm module for sheep and goat, some default values have been picked from the small rumuinants guideline.

Internal or external review

Internal review

Testimony video clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTK59eseDBQ

13. Assessment of soil carbon stock changes at a national level

13. Assessment of soil carbon stock changes at a national level

Livestock species 

Ruminants

Country

New Zealand

Organization/business name

Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, New Zealand

Website url

https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/

Submission Year

2021

Contact name

Peter Millard

Financial or implementing partners

Funding for the work was provided by the NZ Ministry for Primary Industries, through the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Centre

FAO LEAP guidelines

Measuring and modelling soil carbon stocks and stock changes in livestock production systems: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1) 

Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment

We used the LEAP soil C guidelines to develop a national- scale soil carbon inventory to assess changes in soil carbon stocks across five different land use classes, capable of detecting a stock change of two tonnes per hectare.
We  have a methodology that we can use to provide statistical rigor, while minimizing the number of sites that need to be sampled. It minimizes the cost of the project by constraining the number of sites that have to be sampled.

Main focus of the assessment

Soil carbon sequestration

How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines

National sectoral greenhouse gas inventories. Research

 

The guidelines were used for the methodology for soil sampling and carbon analyses and calculation of stock changes

Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment

No

Assessement framework 

Soil carbon stocks inventory

Impact assessment methods used

The methodology being followed is for soil, sampling, analysis and calculation of carbon stocks. At present we are making the first baseline measurements at 700 randomly chosen sampling sites across the country. This will be followed by repeat measurements in subsequent years to detect any changes in carbon stock (with a minimum detectible difference of two tonnes per hectare).

Major deviations from the LEAP guideline

We had to use spatial statistics to design the sampling regime to detect the minimal difference in stock we had set. This was not covered in the LEAP guidelines, so we had to work out how to do this in order to design the programme.

Internal or external review

None

Results/Findings  Description and external links

https://lris.scinfo.org.nz/data/category/environment/

Testimony video clip

Not applicable

Promotional video clip and links

Not applicable

14. Assessment of the environmental impact of management changes in cattle systems

14. Assessment of the environmental impact of management changes in cattle systems

Livestock species 

Cattle, sheeps

Region/Country

Uruguay

Organization/business name

Plan Agropecuario, Uruguay

Website url

https://www.planagropecuario.org.uy/web/

Submission Year

2021

Contact name

Gonzalo Becoña

Financial or implementing partners

UFFIP Project developed by Plan Agropecuario, INIA, Ministry and AgResearch (New Zealand)

FAO LEAP guidelines

Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)
Nutrient flows and associated environmental impacts in livestock supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment

Not stated

Main focus of the assessment

Livestock production, Integrated production at farm level

How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines

Global, regional, and national environmental assessments. Calculators and tools enabling to assess environmental performance improvement over time. Intervention at system level (circular bio-economy). Policymaking. Research.

 

LEAP guidelines were used in the development of a tool to assess environmental performance that helps research processes give information to policy makers, and as a way train agronomist and students.

Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment

In a past project, the tool was used to inform about environmental impact in cattle systems after implementation of management changes in the system. Nowadays, the tool is used by regional government to assess nutrient balance of farms at catchment level

Assessement framework
(Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) 

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Impact assessment methods used  Further details

Not stated

Major deviations from the LEAP guideline

No

Internal or external review

External review by accredited certification/verification body

Results/Findings

Cattle  and  sheep  systems  in  Uruguay  and  worldwide  are  called  to  reduce  their  environmental footprint while increasing efficiency and production. The EMAG (Evaluación Medio Ambiental Ganadera) model accounts for multiple environmental and resource use indicators of nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) balances and losses, greenhouse gas emissions and use of fossil energy. Results are provided on a per-hectare and per-kg product basis. This decision support tool for cattle and sheep farmers systems is based on life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology from “cradle-to-farm gate” for all resources use indicators. It uses national parameters and in case of lack of  information is supplied from  international  research in pastoral systems. The  model relies on a tier 2 animal energy methodology to account for animal productivity and management practices. EMAG is a user-friendly tool that requires basic information to model a farm system, namely: land use (forage types used uniquely for natural grassland in Uruguay), animal management (beef cattle and sheep), farm inputs (fertilizers, supplementary feeds, seeds and agrochemicals) and fossil energy (fuel and electricity) used in the system. EMAG can help identify hot-spots of emissions and resource use, as well as to evaluate changes over time. In addition, it can be used to test cattle or sheep management practices or evaluate mitigation options within the system. By providing multiple indicators, EMAG can be used to provide information to address “trade-offs” between environmental impacts when assessing future options. In  summary, EMAG is a decision-support tool developed with the objective of evaluating the environmental performance of cattle and sheep systems, that help farmers in decision making and different stakeholders according to their interest.  Please find in the following link, a publication showcasing the use EMAG with a case study. IN particular, the paper reports shows potential benefits of improving environmental efficiency and come to interesting results around negative P balance when  increased  productivity in a system is achieved. The application focus on improvement measures through changes in management practices.
agrocienciauruguay.uy/ojs/index.php/agrociencia/article/view/48

Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed

GHG emissions and intensity, nutrient balance and losses and fossil energy used

Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation

Economic impact was assessed in terms of net income of the system. Social impact was not assessed but was reported by the achievement of family goals due to reduce environmental impact was key goal.

Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation

Not applicable

Testimony video clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5wEFnOsypY

Promotional video clip and links

Not applicable

15. Setting up a national GHGs inventory system

15. Setting up a national GHGs inventory system

Livestock species 

Livestock

Region/Country

Kenya

Organization/business name

State Department for Livestock (Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Cooperatives), Kenya

Website url

www.kilimo.go.ke

Submission Year

2021

Contact name

Robin Mbae

Financial or implementing partners

CCAFS, FAO-Rome, KDB, UNIQUE

FAO LEAP guidelines

Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment

Not stated 

Main focus of the assessment

Feed production. Livestock production.Livestock products processing.
Valorization of waste and residues/Integrated production at the district level (circular bio-economy).

How the country/organizationused the LEAP guidelines

National sectoral greenhouse gas inventories. Intervention at production level, including innovation. Intervention at system level (circular bio-economy). Policymaking. Research.

Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment

Sectoral contribution to the Country’s commitment on Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) as part of mitigation of GHGs from livestock

Assessement framework
(Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) 

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) 

Impact assessment methods used  Further details

Environmental impact at Production, Waste, Energy and Transportation stages

Major deviations from the LEAP guideline

None

Internal or external review

Internal review

Results/Findings  

The results are based on baseline scenario and have not been compared since no new data has been generated. Subsequent analysis and comparison will be conducted after implementation of the proposed Dairy Programme. 

Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed

Not assessed

Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation

Not applicable

Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation

Not applicable

Inventory data sharing

The database is under GLEAM tool. However, this can be shared at a later stage upon consultation with our partners who were involved in the programme

Testimony video clip

Not applicable

Promotional video clip and links

Not applicable

16. Assessment of the national GHGs and nitrogen flows from beef and dairy production systems

16. Assessment of the national GHGs and nitrogen flows from beef and dairy production systems

Livestock species

Beef, dairy 

Region/Country

United States, all regions

Organization/business name

US Dept. of Agriculture/Agricultural Research Service, United States of America

Website url

https://www.ars.usda.gov/northeast-area/up-pa/pswmru/

Submission Year

2021

Contact name

C. Alan Rotz

Financial or implementing partners

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

FAO LEAP guidelines

Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment

Not stated

Main focus of the assessment

Livestock production. Integrated production at farm level.

How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines

Global, regional, and national environmental assessments.

Further details

National Assessments of the environmental impacts of beef cattle and dairy production

Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment

No

Assessement framework
(Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) 

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Impact assessment methods used

Process level simulation of production systems with LCA

Major deviations from the LEAP guideline

Not stated

Internal or external review

External review by appointed expert/certification/verification body.

Results/Findings  

U.S. dairy farms were assessed to emit 99,000 ± 8,480 Gg CO2e of greenhouse gas (GHG), equivalent to 1.5% of the estimated U.S. total GHG emission, with a commodity-based intensity of 1.01 ± 0.09 kg CO2e/kg of fat and protein corrected milk (FPCM) produced. Fossil energy consumption was 242,700 ± 38,400 TJ, 0.3% of the U.S. total, or 2.48 ± 0.39 MJ/kg FPCM. Blue (non-precipitation) water consumption was 11,600 ± 2,480 Tg, roughly 3.0% of the estimated U.S. total freshwater use, with an intensity of 119 ± 25 kg/kg FPCM. While these environmental footprints represent a small portion of the respective national inventories, the dairy industry’s contribution to reactive nitrogen (N) losses appears to be considerably greater. Losses of reactive N were estimated at 970 ± 133 Gg, with an intensity of 9.92 ± 1.36 g/kg FPCM. Although there are no national estimates of total reactive N emissions, dairy farms were found to contribute 19 – 24% of national inventories of ammonia (NH3) emissions.  The average annual greenhouse gas and reactive N emissions associated with beef cattle production over the past five years was determined to be 244 ± 26 Tg CO2e and 1789 ± 138 Gg N, respectively. Total fossil energy use was found to be 577 ± 55 PJ and blue water consumption was 22.4 ± 3.4 Pg. Environmental intensities expressed per kg of carcass weight produced were 21.5 ± 2.3 kg CO2e, 157 ± 12 g N, 50.7 ± 4.8 MJ, and 1970 ± 300 L, respectively.

Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed

Not assessed

Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation

Not applicable

Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation

Not applicable

Inventory data sharing

Yes

Testimony video clip

Not applicable

Promotional video clip and links

Not applicable

17. FARM environmental Stewardship

17. FARM environmental Stewardship

Livestock species 

Dairy 

Region/Country

USA, national level, and regional level (5 regions: northeast, southeast, Midwest, west, southwest)

Organization/business name

Dairy/Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy, USA

Website url

www.usdairy.org

Submission Year

2021

Contact name

Ying Wang

Financial or implementing partners

The dairy check-off program is the funder of the program.
National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) hosts the program and implements the program with coops nationwide.

FAO LEAP guidelines

Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1)

Additional methodology used for the environmental assessment

The LEAP soil carbon stock guide will be integrated into next version of FARM ES module.  The carbon sequestration will be taken into account.

Main focus of the assessment

Livestock production

How the country/organization used the LEAP guidelines

Environmental management or/and strategy-making at the producer level. Sustainable sourcing of feed and livestock. National sectoral greenhouse gas inventories. Environmental reporting system at business level. Life cycle databases. Calculators and tools enabling to assess environmental performance improvement over time. Research

 

 

Assessment used to inform action about a specific commitment

The assessment will be used to report the industry sector level GHG reduction, also report the Net Zero Goal toward 2050.

Assessement framework
(Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Pressure State Response (PSR), Nutrient use efficiency (NUE), Water productivity (WP)) 

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Impact assessment methods used  Further details

Major deviations from the LEAP guideline

No

Internal or external review

External review by appointed expert/certification/verification body

Results/Findings 

The LEAPmethodology  has been incorporated into the FARM (Farmers Assuring Responsibly Management) Environmental Stewardship Module. The FARM Environmental Stewardship module asks a set of questions to assess a farm’s carbon and energy footprint – reducing the burden on farmers while still providing reliable, statistically robust estimates that explain 98% of the variability in total carbon footprint. The backbone methodology is based on the LEAP guideline.The assessment focuses on the environmental reporting and progress reporting. Private entities, brands are also encouraged to use the tool to do environmental reporting.

Environmental implications tied to the intervention/innovation if assessed

Not assessed

Economic and social impact (positive and negative) of the intervention/innovation

Not applicable

Unintended consequences on public health of the intervention/innovation

Not applicable

Assessement inventory data sharing?

No

Testimony video clip

Not applicable

Promotional video clip and links

Not applicable

Links

https://nationaldairyfarm.com/dairy-farm-standards/environmental-stewardship/