The European Union's target of net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 puts a critical focus on the livestock sector. Responsible for 14.5% of global anthropogenic emissions, and with key emissions, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) projected to increase by 30% by 2050, producers face challenges of reducing GHG emissions while improving its production to meet the increasing demand for animal protein.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is widely used for environmental impact assessment of a product. However, the complexity and diversity of farming systems, coupled with variations in LCA methodologies, make it difficult to generalize results or synthesize findings for broad decision-making. This methodological gap highlights the need for user-friendly, farm-level carbon footprint assessment tools that can capture emissions from diverse scenarios with a low data input burden. In response, calculators such as the
However, evaluations have revealed notable discrepancies in the carbon footprint estimates generated by different tools for similar farming operations. These variations stem from methodological differences, primarily in system boundaries, quantifying methods and data requirements, where there is a trade-off between the accuracy of farm-specific data and the user-friendliness of tools requiring less input.
To address this lack of consistency and transparency, our research is undertaking a quantitative comparison of estimates from various farm-level GHG assessment tools using real-world data. The goal is two-fold: to help users in selecting the appropriate calculator for their needs and to inform developers by revealing how differences in accounting methods potentially impact the final carbon footprint. This work will also reveal how different tools respond to varied mitigation scenarios, enabling a better understanding of the potential for carbon reduction from improved farming practices.