The reasons in detail are described below, but in short, the methods employed in the Other Livestock Pathway are being reviewed for an update in Cool Farm 3.0 to bring them up to date with IPCC 2019. As part of this review, a number of issues have been discovered which highlight that the methods are no longer accurate, reliable, and up-to-date tools for assessing environmental impacts. These issues have been in place since the Other Livestock Pathway was developed in 2014, and it is only now as we review the pathway for upgrade to current reporting requirements that we have established the gap. Transparency about the outdated method is a crucial step toward achieving this goal and maintaining our reputation for quality and credibility. We are in the process of developing the new methods to the pathway for deployment in Cool Farm 3.0.
Known Issues with Other Livestock 2.0:
Manure Management Emissions: The existing method only reports CO2 emissions and does not include N2O and CH4 emissions. As such it does not represent an accurate CO2e result.
Grazing Emissions: Grazing emissions are not reported separately, and N2O emissions are not included in the calculations.
Cattle calculations in Other Livestock not accurate:
-Species-Specific Manure Management Factors: The use of non-specific cattle factors results in inaccuracies as impacts vary significantly by species.
-Digestible Energy for Cattle: The calculation for digestible energy differs from the dairy/beef module, may underestimate Digestible Energy values.
-Non-Inclusion of Land Use Change (LUC) in Feed Emissions: While not a bug, it's essential to note that feed emissions do not account for land use change, which can be significant for poultry or swine.
If you have created any assessments in the Other Livestock pathway, your results are likely to be inaccurate due to the above issues. We recommend that you do not use any Other Livestock assessments for reporting purposes.
If you wish to continue using this pathway before it gets updated, please note that you are doing so against our recommendation and must be willing to accept associated risks yourself. We are unable to support with Other Livestock assessments or results issues.
If you are using Other Livestock for Cattle, it is recommended that you use the Dairy or Beef Pathways, which have been available since 2018.
Scientific Outdatedness: The method in question, specifically the IPCC 2006 method, has become outdated and no longer aligns with the most current scientific knowledge in the field. As a result, it does not accurately reflect the latest findings and data related to emissions calculations for other livestock.
Inaccuracy: The method contains significant inaccuracies and issues, such as the omission of important emissions components like N2O and CH4 in manure management calculations. These inaccuracies undermine the reliability and credibility of the calculations, which is detrimental to our users.
Lack of Specificity: The method lacks specificity, particularly when it comes to accounting for variations between different livestock species. Using non-specific factors, such as those designed for cattle, fails to capture the nuances in emissions that can vary widely among different types of animals. This lack of specificity can lead to misleading results.
Quality: We are committed to providing our users with high-quality and reliable tools. By highlighting the outdatedness of the Other Livestock method, we can focus our resources and efforts on developing a more robust and quality Cool Farm 3.0 method. This ensures that our users have access to accurate and up-to-date emissions calculations, which is crucial for making informed decisions regarding livestock-related environmental impacts.
Cost-Efficiency: Updating the existing method to address its known issues would be expensive and resource-intensive. Therefore, it is more prudent to invest in creating a new, improved method (Cool Farm 3.0) that not only rectifies the current issues but also sets a higher standard for accuracy and reliability in emissions calculations.
Focus on other, higher impact priorities: We need to focus our limited resources on other priorities where they can have the most significant impact, such as GHG Protocol alignment and Cool Farm Platform development. The Other Livestock pathway has low usage compared to the other CFT pathways, with the majority of assessments being for Cattle, which should be using the more accurate Dairy and Beef Pathways.
Looking ahead, as we embark on the development of Cool Farm 3.0, the gap of these issues to best current science may require building the methods from scratch. The Other Livestock pathway will be reactivated with the IPCC 2019 update in Cool Farm 3.0. Additionally, please be informed that the IPCC 2006 method will no longer be available.
The development of Cool Farm 3.0 including the upgrade to Other Livestock will take place in the new Cool Farm Platform which is under development and will launch in 2024, with the migration of the existing Cool Farm Tool into the platform.
In summary, our decision to advise against use of the outdated method is driven by our dedication to providing you, our users, with accurate, reliable, and up-to-date tools for assessing environmental impacts. We believe that taking this step is essential to maintain our reputation for quality and credibility in this field.
1: Manure Management Emissions
Manure management emissions are only reported as CO2, but they should also include N2O and CH4 emissions.
There is a suspected error in how they are converted to CO2e.
MORE DETAIL: In the manure emissions breakdown, we initially used the total CO2e for the CO2 emissions and set N2O and CH4 to zero by mistake. When this was investigated, N2O and CH4 emissions are much higher than CO2e emissions, suggesting a potential problem with how we calculate them.
2: Grazing Emissions Not Included
Grazing emissions are not reported as a separate item in the detailed data.
Grazing emissions are not being calculated at all and adding it doesn't affect emissions.
MORE DETAIL: There are N2O emissions which are directly and indirectly associated with the excreta on grazed land not being accounted for.
3: Species-Specific Manure Management Factors
The manure management factors currently used are not specific to species, we are using the cattle factors.
MORE DETAIL: The factors are specifically the indirect N2O factors due to leaching and volatilisation. This can have a significant impact depending on the species, e.g. solid storage with bulking agent is 0.58 for swine/pigs and beef cattle, 0.38 for dairy cow, 0.15 for other animals, however anaerobic digestor is the same across all species. I don’t know if we use beef or dairy factors in other livestock.
4: Digestible Energy for Cattle
The calculation for feed digestibility in the "other livestock" code is different from the dairy/beef module code.
This divergence could lead to underestimating DE values
MORE DETAIL: In the code, instead of using the term "NEfeed," we mistakenly repeated "DEfeed." Since DE is usually lower than NE, this mistake might make us underestimate the overall DE value, causing an overestimate of how much cattle eat.