5 Reasons feed producers should know their feed’s carbon footprint

By Franz Waxenecker, Senior Director Precision Services at dsm-firmenich Animal Nutrition & Health

Sustainability is omnipresent today. There is hardly an industry that does not adorn itself with the topic, from railways to banking. Agriculture, and animal husbandry in particular are increasingly in the focus of consumers, retailers, and legislators. In addition to quality and animal welfare, the environmental impact is becoming a key focus, with the CO2 footprint playing a central role. The question of the carbon footprint of meat, milk, and eggs is no longer just an academic one—it is societally relevant. Accordingly, there is also a need for concrete emission data on food, and further down the supply chains for emission data on animal husbandry and feed production. Basically, it should be noted that food production is part of a natural carbon dioxide cycle. In the course of agricultural production, naturally occurring carbon dioxide is extracted from the atmosphere and converted into plant biomass. This is either consumed directly by humans or converted into meat, milk, and eggs via farm animals. After consumption, the carbon dioxide is released back into the atmosphere – and the cycle begins anew. In the course of agricultural production, in addition to the natural CO2 cycle, so-called “anthropogenic” carbon dioxide is also released into the atmosphere. Anthropogenic emissions can be classified according to their origin into fossil, biogenic, and land-use-change-related emissions. This “black” carbon dioxide is determined as part of environmental accounting and represents the carbon footprint of feed and food products.

The main reasons

Five reasons why it makes sense for livestock farmers and feed producers to calculate their own emissions data:

1. Food of animal origin is a climate killer – supposedly:

According to the European Environment Agency, the share of agricultural emissions in the EU27 is 12.6%. Half to two-thirds of these are attributable to livestock production and therefore account for only a single-digit percentage of total emissions. These are composed as follows:

• Emissions from fossil fuels: These are produced by the combustion of diesel, gasoline, natural gas, or heating oil, both directly in the course of agricultural or animal husbandry production and in upstream processes such as the manufacture of operating resources (e.g., fertilizers), machinery, and equipment. Depending on the animal species,, the share of fossil emissions ranges from 30% to 60%.
• Biogenic emissions: These include the effect of other climate-relevant gases such as methane and nitrous oxide from enteric fermentation and the storage and application of slurry and manure. In milk and beef production, biogenic emissions account for 20% to 40% of total emissions, caused by the methanogenic flora in the rumen of the animals. The climate impact of biogenic methane is currently being reevaluated due to its relatively short atmospheric lifetime caused by photochemical degradation. Furthermore, it can also be significantly reduced through diet composition and the use of rumen-active feed additives (3-NOP).
• Emissions from land use change (LUC) assess the carbon dioxide emissions that arise from the conversion of grassland and rainforest into arable land and mainly enter the CO2 balance of animal husbandry via protein carriers. Depending on the feed composition, this can account for 5% to 10% in cattle farming and more than 30% in poultry and pig production.

2. Feed-related emissions account for the largest share in animal farming:

Depending on the animal species, feed-related emissions account for 40% to 75% of total emissions in animal husbandry. In addition to upstream agricultural emissions, these also include transport- and processing-related emissions, as well as those from land use change. However, when calculating the carbon footprint of livestock farmers or feed manufacturers, this data does not have to be collected directly, but can be obtained in verified form from databases.

3. Feed-related emissions offer the greatest reduction-potential:

Ration design, raw material origin, and feed quality offer the greatest leverage for reducing CO2 emissions from livestock farming. It is obvious, that improved feed conversion through better feed hygiene, optimized intestinal health, and the use of feed with low land use emissions will lead to an improvement in the CO2 balance. In order to exploit this potential, feed-related emissions must be calculated accurately. A simple estimate based on average values or national emission factors is not sufficient.

4. CO2 reduction and production costs:

Emissions reduction often goes hand in hand with increased costs. Many of the barn construction and technical solutions known today (e.g., manure-urine separation, slurry pit covers, etc.) work very well and offer significant reduction potential, but they also incur additional investment costs. Extensification measures do not necessarily lead to emission reductions; however, they do entail higher costs, meaning that climate performance and animal welfare often end up in a trade-off. The search for win-win scenarios between emission reduction and production costs takes us right into animal-nutrition, which offers the possibility of reducing climate-relevant gases while simultaneously reducing production costs. Above all, the use of feed additives leads to a double positive return on investment (ROI): on the emissions side and on the cost side. Ultimately, climate-friendly feeding is a question of efficiency.

5. Reporting and auditability:

The need for environmental footprinting in animal husbandry arises mainly from the reporting obligations of in the downstream sector, such as large processors, CPG companies and retailers (keyword:CSRD). The emission data passed on along the value chain must be of sufficient quality in terms of traceability and auditability. Furthermore, the EU Code of Good Labelling Practice sets out precise requirements for the calculation methodology and labeling of environmental information for feed. Simply using averaged data or simplified calculations via feed formulation programs is often not sufficient. Dedicated LCA-platforms (e.g., Sustell™) offer compliance with the applicable standards and guidelines.

Measurability is crucial

In agriculture today, ambition isn’t the problem. Proof is. Because the future isn’t built on promises. It’s built on numbers. Credible. Comparable. Actionable. As sustainability moves from the margins to the core of every business, the question isn’t “Are we doing the right thing?”. It’s “Can we show it? Can we improve it? Can we own it?” Sustell™ was developed by dsm-firmenich to help agri-food businesses go beyond bold claims. To make sustainability performance measurable, manageable, and profitable. In the feedmill, on the farm, in the value chain. Whether you're aiming to reduce emissions, unlock green capital, meet Scope 3 demands, or tell your integrity narrative: Don't make it just better. Unlock the value of your footprint. Make it measurable, traceable and certifiable.