PEFCR Feed for food producing animals
Version 1.5
Draft version 1.5 for public consultation after supporting studies
22 July 2016
Technical Secretariat for the Feed Pilot
Abstract
This section will be completed at a later stage
Authors
The Technical Secretariat is composed of EU and national feed associations (FEFAC, FEFANA, SNIA,
ASSALZOO, DVT, NEVEDI, FHL, AIC, DAKOFO), feed companies (ForFarmers, AB Agri, Denkavit,
Agrifirm, Sanders, DTC, Union Agricole, Evonik, DSM, Ewos, Ajinomoto Eurolysine, Agravis Raiffeisen,
Elanco, Cargill Animal Nutrition), upstream and downstream partners of the feed industry (FEDIOL,
UECBV, FEAP) and the Livestcok and Environmental Assessment and Performance Parntnership
(LEAP) hosted by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). The Technical
Secretariat is supported by Blonk Consultants.
2
Table of Contents
List of figures ...........................................................................................................................................5
List of tables ............................................................................................................................................5
Abbreviations and Units ..........................................................................................................................6
Definitions ...............................................................................................................................................7
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 8
1.1
General information about the PEFCR ................................................................................ 9
2.
Methodological inputs and compliance .................................................................................... 11
3.
PEFCR review and background information .............................................................................. 12
4.
5.
6.
3.1
PEFCR review panel ........................................................................................................... 12
3.2
Review requirements for the PEFCR document ................................................................ 12
3.3
Reasoning for development of PEFCR ............................................................................... 12
3.4
Conformance with the PEFCR Guidance ........................................................................... 12
PEFCR scope .............................................................................................................................. 13
4.1
Functional unit................................................................................................................... 13
4.2
Representative product ..................................................................................................... 13
4.3
Product classification (NACE/CPA) .................................................................................... 14
4.4
Purposes of LCA assessment of feed supported by this PEFCR and related requirements
15
4.5
System boundaries – life-cycle stages and processes ....................................................... 15
4.6
Selection of the EF impact categories indicators .............................................................. 18
4.7
Additional environmental information ............................................................................. 19
4.8
Assumptions/limitations of the PEFCR .............................................................................. 20
Life cycle inventory analysis ...................................................................................................... 21
5.1
Definition of foreground and background data in relation to contribution and access ... 21
5.2
Data access and use of primary or secondary data and data quality requirements......... 22
5.3
Primary data collection...................................................................................................... 24
5.4
Secondary data selection .................................................................................................. 35
5.5
Calculating the overall data quality score ......................................................................... 38
5.6
Reporting data gaps and proxies ....................................................................................... 38
5.7
Minimum data quality level for PEF communication ........................................................ 38
5.8
End-of-life stage ................................................................................................................ 39
5.9
Requirements for multifunctional products and multiproduct processes allocation ....... 39
Benchmark and classes of environmental performance ........................................................... 40
3
7.
Interpretation ............................................................................................................................ 41
7.1
Robustness of the PEF model ............................................................................................ 41
7.2
Identification of hotspots .................................................................................................. 41
7.3
Estimation of uncertainties ............................................................................................... 42
7.4
Conclusions, limitations and recommendations ............................................................... 42
8.
Reporting, Disclosure and Communication ............................................................................... 43
8.1
Context .............................................................................................................................. 43
8.2
Recommendation for communication of environmental information ............................. 44
9.
Verification ................................................................................................................................ 45
10.
Reference literature .............................................................................................................. 46
11.
Supporting information for the PEFCR .................................................................................. 46
List of annexes ...................................................................................................................................... 47
4
List of figures
Figure 4-1: System boundaries for the production of animal feed. All grey blocks are in the scope of
the PEFCR, the dark grey block corresponds to the foreground processes. Note that transport of feed
ingredients to the mill and transport from feed mill to farms is not always under the control of the
feed business operator.......................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 5-1: Data selection decision tree. Note that in some cases the DQR score for that given process
need to be increased (see box on right)................................................................................................ 36
Figure 8-1: Communication of environmental information along the feed and food supply chain. .... 43
List of tables
Table 4-1: Impact categories to be quantified for feed for food producing animals. The column ILCD
Quality provides the robustness according to ILCD Quality classification. ........................................... 18
Table 5-1: Most relevant flows, processes and activities for environmental impact of feed lifecycle . 21
Table 5-2: Access to primary / secondary data for the different life cycle stages ................................ 23
Table 5-3: Time period in relation to purpose and scope of the PEF study .......................................... 24
Table 5-5: Collection of activity data at the feed mill ........................................................................... 26
Table 5-6: Data Quality Rating system. ................................................................................................. 27
Table 5-7: Data collection for feed transport to farm if fuel use can be collected ............................... 28
Table 5-8: Data collection for feed transport if information on actual fuel use cannot be collected .. 28
Table 5-9: Data quality rating system for transport. ............................................................................. 29
Table 5-10: Example of transport data to be collected from suppliers of the feed materials per feed
material. ................................................................................................................................................ 30
Table 5-11: Data quality rating system for feed ingredients production. ............................................. 34
Table 5-12: Data quality requirements. ................................................................................................ 38
Table 8-1: recommended communication vehicles, dependent on purpose. ...................................... 44
5
Abbreviations and Units
BOM
COD
DE
DM
DQA
DQS
EF
ELCD
EPD
Feed Pilot
FEFAC
GE
GHG
GWP
Ha
HH
ILCD
IPCC
ISO
kWh
LCA
LCI
LCIA
LHV
LUC
NACE
NPK
OEF
PCR
PEF
PEFCR
RER
ReCiPe
SC
TS
TS feed
= Bill of Materials
= Chemical Oxygen demand
= Digestible Energy
= Dry matter content
= Data Quality Assessment
= Data Quality Score
= Environmental Footprint
= European reference Life Cycle Database
= Environmental Product Declaration
= PEF pilot feed for food producing animals
= European Feed Manufacturers Federation
= Gross Energy
= Greenhouse Gases
= Global Warming Potentials
= Hectare
= Human health (used in ionizing radiation HH)
= International Reference Life Cycle Data System
= Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
= International Organization for Standardization
= kilowatt hour
= Life Cycle Assessment
= Life Cycle Inventory
= Life Cycle Impact Assessment
= Lower Heating Value (or net calorific value)
= Land Use Change
= Statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community
= Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P) and Potassium (K)
= Organisation Environmental Footprint
= Product Category Rules
= Product Environmental Footprint
= Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules
= Region Europe
= Impact assessment method
= Steering Committee
= Technical Secretariat
= Technical Secretariat of the pilot feed for food producing animals
6
Definitions
Feed ingredient: These are either feed materials or feed additives. Ingredients are of plant, animal or
aquatic origin, or other organic or inorganic substances and include:
-
Feed materials 1 - means products of vegetable or animal origin, whose principal purpose is
to meet animals’ nutritional needs, in their natural state, fresh or preserved, and products
derived from the industrial processing thereof, and organic or inorganic substances, whether
or not containing feed additives, which are intended for use in oral animal-feeding either
directly as such, or after processing, or in the preparation of compound feed, or as carrier of
pre-mixtures;
-
Feed additive 2 means substances, micro-organisms or preparations, other than feed material
and pre-mixtures, which are intentionally added to feed or water in order to perform, in
particular, one or more of the functions
Food producing animals refers to any animal that is fed, bred or kept for the production of food for
human consumption, including animals that are not used for human consumption, but that belong to
a species that is normally used for human consumption. It includes fish from aquaculture.
1
As defined in Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 13 July
2009 on the placing on the market and use of feed, amending European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC)
No 1831/2003 and repealing Council Directive 79/373/EEC, Commission Directive 80/511/EEC, Council
Directives 82/471/EEC, 83/228/EEC, 93/74/EEC, 93/113/EC and 96/25/EC and Commission Decision
2004/217/EC
2
as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September
2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition
7
1.
Introduction
This draft PEFCR shall be used in parallel with the PEF Guide (European Commission, 2013) and the
latest version of the Guidelines from the European Commission (Version 5.2 - Guidance for the
implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF)) (European Commission, 2016).
It is drafted according to the PEF Guide requirements and the Template provided in Annex B to the
guidance document (version 5.2). Where the requirements in this draft PEFCR are in line with but
more specific than those of the PEF Guide, such specific requirements shall be fulfilled.
This draft PEFCR integrates the feedback from the five supporting studies performed by the members
of the Feed Technical Secretariat. The supporting studies are available in Annex 2 and the main
comments from the supporting studies have been summarized in Annex 3. The draft PEFCR will be
revised on the basis of the comments received during the final public consultation organised from 22
July 2016 to 9 September 2016. It will then undergo external review during Autumn 2016 and Spring
2017 before submission to the EF Steering Committee.
The use of the present PEFCR is optional for PEF guide in-house applications, it is recommended for
PEF-compliant external applications without comparison/comparative assertions, while it is
mandatory for PEF-compliant external applications with comparisons/comparative assertions.
Since feed is an intermediate product, this PEFCR can be used in different contexts. First there is the
context of the LCA operator that conducts a PEF study for a food producing animal according to a
specific PEFCR or the PEF guidelines itself if no PEFCR is available. For this use the PEFCR of feed for
food producing animals provides the requirements of accurate transfer of LCI information.
Then a second use of this PEFCR is to perform cradle to gate feed PEF studies used for in houseapplication or for external communication.
So, this PEFCR supports the following purposes:
1) Provision of LCI information on compound feed in the context of food producing animals PEF
studies ;
2) Cradle to gate PEF studies of compound feed for either internal or external use but without
comparison
3) Cradle to gate PEF studies of compound feed for comparison, either between alternatives (e.g.
sourcing, raw materials choices,..) or over time (e.g. trend monitoring)
The requirements set up by this draft PEFCR may vary according to the purpose of the study.
8
1.1
General information about the PEFCR
1.1.1
Technical Secretariat
The Technical Secretariat of the feed pilot consisted during the drafting of this PEFCR of the following
members:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
AB AGRI
AGRAVIS Raiffeisen AG
Agrifirm Group
AIC – Agricultural Industries Confederation
Ajinomoto Eurolysine
Assalzoo - Associazione Nazionale tra i Produttori di Alimenti Zootecnici
Blonk consultants
Cargill Animal Nutrition
Dakofo, The Danish Grain- and Feed Trade Association
DENKAVIT
Deutsche Tiernahrung Cremer GmbH & CO.KG
DSM Nutritional Products AG
DVT - Deutscher Verband Tiernahrung e. V.
Elanco Animal Health
Evonik Industries AG Nutrition and Care Division
EWOS AS
FAO, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
FEAP – Federation of European Aquaculture Producers
FEDIOL, the EU Proteinmeal and Vegetable Oil Industry
FEFANA, EU association of Specialty Feed Ingredients and their mixtures
FEFAC, European Feed Manufacturers Federation
NSL – The Norwegian Seafood Federation
ForFarmers N.V.
Nevedi - Dutch Feed Industry Association
Sanders
SNIA, Syndicat National de l’Industrie de la nutrition Animale
UECBV - European Livestock And Meat Trades Union
Union Agricole Holding AG
1.1.2
Consultation and stakeholders
The development of this PEFCR can be followed on the dedicated wiki page of the EU pilots’
website: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/PEFCR+Pilot%3A+Feed+for+foo
d-producing+animals
The Technical Secretariat of the PEF pilot on feed for food producing animals has on several
occasions invited relevant stakeholders to participate in the PEFCR development.
The relevant stakeholders for the PEFCR development include representatives from feed material
suppliers, farm and trade associations, compound feed producers, consumers, government
representatives, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), public agencies and independent parties
9
and certification bodies. The identified relevant stakeholders were proactively informed by the
Technical Secretariat about the opportunity to take part in the different public consultations.
The following public consultations were organised during the development of this PEFCR
-
-
-
A first virtual consultation was organised in October 2014 on the scope and representative
product of the Feed pilot (Technical Secretatiat for the Feed pilot, 2014). This consultation
phase also included a physical consultation which took place on 28 October 2014. The list of
participants in this consultation, the comments received and the description of how they
have been addressed are available on the wiki page
The second public virtual consultation was organised from 4 September 2015 to 3 October
2015. The purpose of this consultation was to gather feedback on the screening report
(Technical Secretariat for the Feed Pilot, 2015) and the first draft PEFCR prepared by the
Feed Pilot Technical Secretariat. Likewise, the list of participants in this consultation, the
comments received and the description of how they have been addressed are available on
the wiki page. The updated first draft PEFCR was then approved by the EF Steering
Committee on 18 November 2015 (Technical Secretatiat for the Feed pilot, 2015).
Final public consultation from 22 July 2016 to 9 September 2016, on final draft PEFCR taking
into account the feedback from the supporting studies.
The Technical Secretariat of the PEF pilot on feed for food producing animals produced a
document describing the major comments received and how they have been addressed. This
document is available in the EF virtual consultation Forum.
All along the pilot phase, Technical Secretariat created and maintained a log of the stakeholders that
have been communicated with and responded to.
1.1.3
Date of publication and expiration
Version number: 1.5 (final draft for public consultation)
Date of publication/revision: July 2016
Date of expiration: N/A
1.1.4
Geographic region
The PEFCR is valid for all EU feed mill operations and the supply chains that provide these operations.
1.1.5
Language(s) of PEFCR
This PEFCR has been written in English. It is not foreseen at this stage to make this document
available in other languages. Should this PEFCR be translated, the English version supersedes
translated versions in case of conflicts.
10
2.
Methodological inputs and compliance
This draft PEFCR s has been developed according to the requirements of the PEF Guide (Annex II to
Recommendation (2013/179/EU) and the Product Environmental Footprint Pilot Guidance (version
5.2).
Where relevant, the recommendations of the Cattle Model Working Group (CMWG) are
implemented in this draft PEFCR (JRC & European Commission, 2015). These recommendations are
available on the EU pilot wiki page. The CMWG involved the red meat, dairy, pet food, leather and
feed for food producing animal pilots and was operational in the second half of 2014.
Where relevant, the recommendations from the various issue papers approved by the Technical
Advisory Board have also been implemented in the draft PEFCR.
The Guidelines for assessment of environment performance of animal feed supply chains, released in
April 2015 by the FAO-led Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance partnership (LEAP)
(FAO LEAP, 2015) were also an important methodological input for the development of this draft
PEFCR. These guidelines are less prescriptive than what is needed in PEFCR. Many of the suggestions
on how calculations should be done in the LEAP guidelines are therefore translated to requirements
that shall be fulfilled in this PEFCR.
11
3.
3.1
PEFCR review and background information
PEFCR review panel
The Feed Technical Secretariat is currently working on the composition of the review panel and this
section will completed at a later stage.
3.2
Review requirements for the PEFCR document
The critical review is essential for ensuring that the PEFCR:
• is consistent with the guidance provided in the PEF Guide and the PEFCR guidance (version
5.2);
• complements the PEF guide requirements with additional requirements specific to the
particularities of the life cycle of compound feed;
• provides guidance to conduct a compliant PEF study enables comparisons and comparative
assertions in all cases when this is considered feasible, relevant and appropriate.
3.3
Reasoning for development of PEFCR
This PEFCR aims at providing guidance on how to assess the environmental performance of
compound feed in a harmonised way. Considering the relative importance of compound feed in the
environmental footprint of animal products, it is justified to harmonize the feed-specific aspects of
the methodology across all food-producing animals.
3.4
Conformance with the PEFCR Guidance
This PEFCR has been developed in compliance with the “Guidance for the implementation of the EU
PEF during the Environmental Footprint (EF) pilot phase – Version 5.2”.
This section will be completed after the critical review of the PEFCR.
12
4.
4.1
PEFCR scope
Functional unit
Feed is an intermediate product which means that no functional unit is considered as such. The
declared unit / reference flow is considered instead. The reference flow is 1 tonne of animal feed
product delivered to the livestock farm (or fish farm) entry gate.
What?
Animal feed for food-producing animals
How much?
1 tonne as fed
How well?
To be able to conduct meaningful LCAs for food producing animals, i.e.
With upstream feed emissions until delivery to the farm
With relevant additional information to enable modelling of feed use
on the farm (for instance , the dry matter (DM), gross energy (GE),
Carbon (C), Ash, Phosphorus (P), Nitrogen (N), Zinc (Zn), Copper (Cu),
content based on the feed supply to the animal species reared).
How long?
Fulfil its function well until the expiry date, when stored under specified
conditions.
Normally feed is consumed in a short period after delivery. Losses during
storage are uncommon and can usually be neglected.
The majority of the feed is sold in bulk, however if feed is sold in smaller packed units the packaging
materials should be included in the analysis. The quantity of packaging material will be additional on
top of the 1000 kg of feed ingredients.
The different declared units or reference flows should not be compared, unless the comparison takes
place in the context of a cradle to grave PEF study of animal products. The conditions to establish
such a comparison are described in section 6.
4.2
Representative product
The representative product is a virtual compound feed product and consists of the average
composition of feed ingredients consumed by the EU compound feed industry in the time period
2009-2013.
As feed is an intermediate product, the representative product does not correspond to a functional
benchmark (see section 6 for more information).
The representative product is further described in the screening report available on the wiki page. It
will be integrated as annex I of the final version of this PEFCR.
13
4.3
Product classification (NACE/CPA)
The scope of the PEFCR is compound feed produced in feed mills and provided as a partial or
complete ration to food-producing animals. It belongs to the CPA 10.91 product group “Manufacture
of prepared feeds for farm animals (Eurostat ISSN 1977-0375)”
The total CPA 10.91 includes:
•
•
•
manufacture of prepared feeds for farm animals
preparation of unmixed (single) feeds for farm animals
treatment of slaughter co-products to produce animal feeds and explicitly excludes:
o production of fishmeal for animal feed, see CPA 10.20
o production of oilseed cake, see CPA 10.41
o activities resulting in by-products usable as animal feed without special treatment
The PEFCR for feed focuses on compound (mixed) feed produced in a feed mill because it is the
predominant industrial product that farmers buy as an external input. Moreover, the majority of feed
products sold by EU feed manufactures are compound feeds. Code 10.91 is a close reference, but the
scope of this PEFCR is actually narrower.
Following this reasoning, the following products do not formally belong to the scope of this PEFCR,
although there are no methodological reasons for treating them differently when assessing their
impact as part of a feed ration:
1.
2.
Single feed materials products, i.e. products that originate at a specific food, drink or biofuel
processing plant and are sold directly to farmer (e.g. rapeseed meal, wet gluten feed and
distillers supplied to dairy farms).
Feed materials that are produced on (or under the control of) the animal farm such as grass
(silage), maize (silage) or grains fed directly to farm animals.
The feed PEFCR provides consistent methodological requirements for the entire upstream cradle to
gate LCA of feed materials. Therefore, the feed PEFCR can also be used by the operators that
produce single feed products, either industrially or on the farm. The PEFCR is therefore useful for
other CPA codes, such as 10.20; 10.41 and 10.61, but it is not intended to be “the” PEFCR for these
sectors. In other words, in the absence of PEFCR for home-mixing and straight-purchased feed
ingredients, the feed PEFCR can be used for these products.
14
4.4
Purposes of LCA assessment of feed supported by this PEFCR and related requirements
This PEFCR can be used as follows:
1) Provision of LCI information of feed to PEF studies for food producing animals
2) Cradle to gate PEF studies on compound feed for food-producing animals, without comparison
3) Cradle to gate PEF studies on compound feed for food-producing animals, with comparison
a) comparison between alternatives: such as, different manufacturing methods, evaluation of
alternative feed configurations to the same or different nutrient profiles, feed ingredient
sourcing and their manufacturing methods, on the basis of upstream life cycle emissions of
feed ingredients and feed formulation;
b) comparison in time: monitoring trends/progress in environmental impact of feed products
related to measures aimed at reducing environmental impact.
The requirements set up in this PEFCR may vary according to the purpose of the study. A summary of
the main variations in relation to the objective of the study is presented in annex IV.
4.5
System boundaries – life-cycle stages and processes
The system boundaries are described in Figure 4-1. The Figure shows all the different routes for feed
production, the grey fields relate to the production of compound feed and are in the scope of the
PEFCR.
The majority of feed ingredients used in compound feed originate from crop cultivation in its broad
sense. The cultivation of crops requires the input of manure and fertilisers as well as energy carriers,
water, crop protection products and auxiliary materials. The full lifecycle of the production of these
products, including transport and depreciation of capital goods is in the scope of this PEFCR. The
cultivation of crops can yield one main product, or yield two or more co-products. The crop (co)product goes through one or more processing stages to separate fractions of the product and refine
or purify for use in the animal feed. Processing usually requires energy, water and auxiliary materials
(e.g. hexane for oilseed extraction). Waste water from processing will require treatment. Other
sources for feed are co-products from animal products processing and feed additives which partly
originate from industrial processes. Minerals are also used as feed ingredients.
Feed compounding is the next phase, in which multiple feed ingredients are mixed together to
produce a compound feed for food producing animals. In terms of access to information for a
compound feed company, the activities taking place in the feed mill are considered as foreground
processes.
The delivery of the feed to the farm also belongs to the scope of this PEFCR but the following life
cycle stages are considered to be outside the system boundaries in this PEFCR: feed utilisation in the
animal production system, processing of animal products, retail and end of life. However, manure
from the animal husbandry phase can re-enter the lifecycle at the cultivation of crops stage. Other
products also re-enter the lifecycle at the compounding of feed as feed ingredients from the
processing of animal products from the slaughterhouse for instance, e.g. plasma protein or the dairy
processing industry such as whey powders. It should be noted that these products should be
modelled using ‘average’ data as an attributional approach as prescribed in the PEF (thus using an
‘average’ LCI of the animal product).
15
Figure 4-1: System boundaries for the production of animal feed. All grey blocks are in the scope of the PEFCR, the dark grey block corresponds to the foreground processes. Note that
transport of feed ingredients to the mill and transport from feed mill to farms is not always under the control of the feed business operator.
16
For some purposes the system boundaries need to be extended. This can be the case for studies
where the impact of modifications in the feed formulation is assessed. Such modifications can indeed
have consequences on feed utilisation digestion (formally outside the scope of this PEFCR) which
require to be captured.
A comparative PEF study can be used for evaluation of alternative feed configurations. This could
support decisions in changing the feed composition to improve environmental performance.
However the system boundaries of the cradle to gate assessment can be inappropriate in several
situations. Annex V gives an overview of these situations and to how to extend the system
boundaries in the PEF study to come to definitive conclusions. These solutions shall be applied.
17
4.6
Selection of the EF impact categories indicators
Since feed is an intermediate product all default impact categories being selected in the PEF guide
shall be included in the assessment, see Table 4-1 .
Low robustness
Medium robustness
High robustness
Table 4-1: Impact categories to be quantified for feed for food producing animals. The column ILCD Quality provides the
robustness according to ILCD Quality classification.
ILCD
Impact
Description
Source
Quality category
I
Climate change Global Warming Potential calculating the radiative forcing over a time IPCC 2007
horizon of 100 years
I
Ozone
Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) calculating the destructive effects on World
depletion
the stratospheric ozone layer over a time horizon of 100 years
Meteorological
Organization
(WMO)
I
Particulate
Quantification of the impact of premature death or disability that Rabland
matter
particulates/ respiratory inorganics have on the population in Spadaro 2004
comparison to PM2.5. It includes the assessment of primary (PM10 and
PM2.5) and secondary PM (incl. creation of secondary PM due to SOx,
NOx and NH3 emissions) and CO
II
Ionizing
Quantification of the impact of ionizing radiation on the population, in Frischknecht et
radiation
comparison to Uranium 235
al. 2000
(human health)
II
Photochemical Expression of the potential contribution to photochemical ozone Van Zelm et al.
ozone
formation. Only for Europe. It includes spatial differentiation.
2008
formation
II
Mineral, Fossil Scarcity of mineral resource, with scarcity calculated as ‘Reserve Base’. Van Oers et al.
and Renewable It refers to identified resources that meet specified physical and 2002
Resource
chemical criteria related to current mining practice. The reserve base
depletion
may encompass those parts of the resources that have a reasonable
potential for becoming economically available within planning horizons
beyond those that assume proven technology and current economics
II
Acidification
Accumulated Exceedance (AE) characterizing the change in critical load Seppӓlӓ et al.
exceedance of the sensitive area of terrestrial and main freshwater 2006 and Posch
ecosystems, to which acidifying substances deposit. European country et al. 2008
dependent
II
Terrestrial
Accumulated Exceedance (AE) characterizing the change in critical load Seppӓlӓ et al.
Eutrophication exceedance of the sensitive area, to which eutrophying substances 2006 and Posch
deposit. European country dependent
et al. 2008
II
Marine
Expression of the degree to which the emitted nutrient reaches the ReCiPe v1.05
Eutrophication marine compartment (nitrogen considered to be the limiting factor in
marine water). European validity. Averaged characterisation factors
from country dependent characterisation factors.
II
Freshwater
Expression of the degree to which the emitted nutrient reaches the ReCiPe v1.05
Eutrophication freshwater end compartment (phosphorus considered to be the limiting
factor in freshwater). European validity. Averaged characterisation
factors from country dependent characterisation factors.
II / III
Human
Comparative Toxic Unit for humans (CTUh) expressing the estimated USEtox
toxicity, cancer increase in morbidity in the total human population per unit mass of a
effects
chemical emitted (cases per kilogramme)
II / III
Human
Comparative Toxic Unit for humans (CTUh) expressing the estimated USEtox
toxicity, non- increase in morbidity in the total human population per unit mass of a
cancer effects
chemical emitted (cases per kilogramme)
II / III
Freshwater
Comparative Toxic Unit for ecosystems (CTUe) expressing an estimate USEtox
ecotoxicity
of the potentially affected fraction of species (PAF) integrated over time
and volumes per unit mass of a chemical emitted (PAF m3 year / kg)
III
Land use
Soil Organic Matter (SOM) based on changes in SOM measured in (kg Mila i Canals et
C/m2/a). Biodiversity impacts not covered by the dataset.
al. 2007
III
Water
Freshwater scarcity: Scarcity-adjusted amount of water used.
Swiss
resource
ecoscarcity 2006
depletion
18
In addition the impact on climate change, as implemented in the ILCD method, shall be reported,
with emissions from land use change excluded. This will be reported additionally as “Climate change
ex LUC” according to the recommendations of the ENVIFOOD Protocol (Food SCP RT, 2013) and the
LEAP feed guidelines (FAO LEAP, 2015).
The difference of robustness of the impact categories (categories I, II and III in the table above, from
the more to the less robust) shall be taken into account when communicating PEF results. This is
further explained in section 8.
The calculation and reporting of midpoint impact categories is the same for all defined Feed PEF
purposes. However the PEF studies on food producing animals may only use a part for their external
communication.
4.7
Additional environmental information
The TS feed recognizes the importance of quantifying the impact on biodiversity that the feed
lifecycle may have. In the screening study, the possibility to assess impact on biodiversity was tested
using ReCiPe (see screening report for more information). This was further tested in the supporting
studies and the outcome is reported in the supporting study annexes of the second draft PEFCR. The
indicator translates the following mid- point impacts to a pressure indicator on biodiversity on the
basis of an underlying model (Goedkoop et al., 2009), into species lost for a period of time
(species.year).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Climate change Ecosystems
Terrestrial acidification
Freshwater eutrophication
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Marine ecotoxicity
Agricultural land occupation
Urban land occupation
Natural land transformation
Although the indicator can be improved the results seem to in line with the scientific knowledge on
the major threats on biodiversity as being defined by the UNEP in the global biodiversity outlook
(Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010). Therefore, impacts on biodiversity may
be reported in PEF profiles as additional information, by applying this methodology.
One of the challenges when assessing the impacts on biodiversity of animal products, is to capture
both on-farm and off-farm impacts. The off-farm impacts are mainly associated with the feed
purchased by the farmer and ReCiPe is seen as a valuable method to capture those. The UNEP Setac
initiative on biodiversity also provides useful information. The recommendations of the animal PEF
pilots regarding biodiversity are complementary to the recommendations described in this PEFCR.
19
4.8
Assumptions/limitations of the PEFCR
This PEFCR assumes that the user has access to information from a specific feed business operator.
This PEFCR can only be used if sufficient information is available on feed ingredients, and nutritional
analysis data. This PEFCR is technology neutral from the perspective of the production of feed
ingredients. If applied properly with sufficient access to data, differences between production
techniques may become visible, but those are not distinguished based on a prejudice.
20
5.
Life cycle inventory analysis
This section describes how to conduct the life cycle inventory for a Feed PEF study. To follow the
order in which tasks are performed during a PEF study, this section is organised in the following
manner: for each item of data collection, the recommendations on which data to collect are
immediately followed by guidance on how to assess data quality.
5.1
Definition of foreground and background data in relation to contribution and access
This PEFCR is based on the outcomes of the screening study and supporting studies. These studies
gave insight into the main causes (due to emissions and resource use) of the environmental impact of
the cradle to gate compound feed lifecycle. They are listed in Table 5-1 (see screening report for
more information). These impacts are associated with the life cycle of compound feed production
and are not related to the consumption of compound feed
Table 5-1: Most relevant flows, processes and activities for environmental impact of feed lifecycle
Most relevant elementary flows or
mechanisms
N relevant for eutrophication, acidification
and climate change impact
P relevant for eutrophication and resource
depletion
Land transformation
Land occupation
Water depletion
Energy
determines
the
impacts
(photochemical smog formation, PM,
Ionizing radiation) and has a relevant
contribution to Climate Change, Acidification
and Eutrophication
Metals (Zn, Cu, Cr, Pb, Hg) relevant for
human toxicity and eco-toxicity.
Crop protection products mainly relevant for
eco-toxicity scores
Most relevant processes
Fertilizer
and
manure
application
Fertilizer
and
manure
application
Soy bean growing in Argentina
& Brazil
All crops
Irrigated crops in regions with
water stress
Energy production for, and/or
fossil fuel use in processing,
transport, field operations
Fertilizer
and
application at farm
Farming
manure
Most relevant life cycle
stage
Raw material acquisition
and primary processing
Raw material acquisition
and primary processing
Raw material acquisition
and primary processing
Raw material acquisition
and primary processing
Raw material acquisition
and primary processing
Raw material acquisition
and primary processing
Distribution and transport
Production of the main
product
Raw material acquisition
and primary processing
Raw material acquisition
and primary processing
Most of the determining emissions and resource use of the compound feed lifecycle happen at
processes (mainly cultivation) in the supply chain that are commonly not under the control of feed
companies. For these processes often only secondary data can be used.
The following processes are considered to be always run by the compound feed company:
1. purchase of feed ingredients,
2. formulation of the compound feed,
3. operations in the feed mill.
21
Therefore, the feed business operator has specific knowledge of: 1) list of feed ingredients; 2)
nutritional analysis data of the compound feed, 3) activity data of the compound feed mill including
use of energy carriers and potential on-site energy production, feed ingredients, packaging and
auxiliary materials. All these processes are considered to be foreground processes. The list of feed
ingredients and the compound feed nutritional analysis (1 and 2) are very important in terms of
lifecycle impact contribution. The list of feed ingredients is required for determining the impact of
production of feed ingredients and the nutritional analysis is relevant for determining the impact of
feed use downstream of the feed mill.
Transport to the farm where the feed is consumed, is sometimes run by the feed company,
sometimes outsourced and sometimes the feed is being collected by farmers at the factory
(especially the smaller quantities). This PEFCR gives guidance on how to operate if primary data are
available and when defaults can and shall be used.
Transport of feed ingredients from the producer to the feed mill is in most cases not run by the feed
business operator and also in most cases transport data such as distances and mode of
transportation are not collected at the moment. This PEFCR gives guidance on which data to collect
for inbound transport and when to use defaults.
Feed ingredient production is hardly ever run by the feed business operator and commonly
secondary data needs to be used here. To make this PEFCR also applicable for those situations where
the operator conducting the PEF study has both access to primary feed mill data and production data
of feed ingredients requirements are set on how to model feed ingredients production.
5.2
Data access and use of primary or secondary data and data quality requirements
Table 5-2 gives an overview of the processes involved in the cradle to gate feed lifecycle for which
primary and/or secondary data needs to be collected. Table 5-2 is the result of implementing the
data needs matrix (Guidance Document 5.2) for the operator that has access to the feed mill data
that are essential to conduct a PEF study (Process no. 1, 2 and 3 in Table 5-2). Without the data of
these processes a PEF study compliant to this PEFCR is not possible. The data quality requirements
depend on the purpose of the study.
The data quality shall be assessed using the data quality rating (DQR) system as described in the PEF
Guidance document. The higher requirements (i.e. lower DQR score) apply for studies involving
comparison. Less strict requirements (i.e. higher DQR score) apply for studies not aimed for public
comparison.
22
The table should be read as follows:
-
The column “process” described the different life cycle stages for which data shall be
collected
The column “access to primary data” refers to the sections of this PEFCR which provide
guidance on primary data collection
The column “no access to primary data” provides guidance in case of absence of primary
data and refers to the appropriate sections of this PEFCR.
Finally the column “DQR related to the scope of the study” specifies the applicable DQR for
the different processes or life cycle stages, in relation to the purpose of the study.
Information of processes (partially) run by the Information
of
company information is partially or not available processes run by
the
company
Table 5-2: Access to primary / secondary data for the different life cycle stages
Process
Access to primary
No access to primary
data
data
1 Feed formulation BOM
 section 5.3.1
No PEF possible
2. Feed formulation  section 5.3.2
No PEF possible
Nutritional analysis data
3. Feed mill operation
 section 5.3.3.
No PEF possible
4. Outbound transport
(to feed user)
5. Inbound transport
(from final producer in
Supply chain)
6.
Feed
ingredient
production
process
lifecycle information
Primary data on
fuel use or on
transport
means
and distance
 section 5.3.4
Primary data on
fuel use or on
transport
means
and distance
 section 5.3.5
Supplier
specific
data
derived
according to (nonexisting) PEFCR or
LEAP guidelines
 section 5.3.6
Apply default values on
transport distance and
transport means
 section 5.3.4
DQR related to the scope of the study
Not applicable
Not applicable
DQR <3 for purpose 1,2
DQR < 1,6
purpose 3, 4 if relevant for comparison
DQR <3 purpose 1, 2 or default values.
DQR < 1,6 for
purpose 3, if relevant for comparison
Apply default values on
transport distance and
transport means
 section 5.3.5
DQR <3 for purpose 1,2 or default
values
DQR < 1,6 for
purpose 3, if relevant for comparison
Select processes from
secondary database on
feed
ingredients
production
EC dataset
GFLI dataset
 section 5.4.1
DQR <3 for purpose 1,2
DQR < 1,6 for
purpose 3, if relevant for comparison
DQR < 3
23
5.3
Primary data collection
5.3.1
List of feed ingredients (Bill of Materials, BOM)
The list of feed ingredients entails the following data:
•
•
Types and quantities of feed materials
Types and quantities of feed additives
The reference to define the feed materials is the EU Catalogue of feed materials 3 and to define the
feed additives it is the EU Register of Feed Additives 4.
For crops and processed feed materials used in the feed mill the country of origin shall be recorded if
this information is provided in the transaction to the feed business operator. See 5.4.1 for further
guidance on how to deal with missing or incomplete information on origin of production.
The feed ingredients list shall be the weighted average composition of a feed reflecting the practice
of producing feed for the farms of food producing animals in scope. The weighted average shall be
determined by taking time related variation and the variation of geographical origin for supply into
account. Combining different geographical origins of supply in the calculation of the weighted
average does not negatively affect the data quality rating. The scope of the PEF study determines the
time period for deriving the weighted average as indicated in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3: Time period in relation to purpose and scope of the PEF study
Purpose
Scope
Time period for deriving weighted
averages
1. Cradle to gate PEF
Determined by PEF study on
According to specifications of PEF study
compliant
food producing animals
on food producing animals
information for
studies on food
producing animals
2.Cradle to gate PEF
Feeds on the market with
1 year average or longer up to 3 years if
study on compound
fixed nutritional specifications longer term market cycles occur in feed
feed, without
for more than a year (such as
materials production
comparison
basic dairy and pig fattening
feed)
Feeds on the market with
Use the longest applicable time period
nutritional specifications fixed
for period shorter than a year.
3a. Cradle to gate
To show if an innovative feed
Use a time period to derive feed
PEF study including
performs better than the
composition for making a fair
product comparison
alternative
comparison
3b. Cradle to gate
To show developments
Two options (can be combined):
PEF study for
and/or improvements in
No averaging if trend analysis aims to
performance
performance over time
show actual fluctuations (also related to
tracking
market fluctuations and not to actual
changes in composition).
Rolling averages to correct for market
fluctuations.
3
Reporting requirements
Record and
communicate time
period of setting
weighted average.
Report a time period of 1
year or longer if
applicable and if not
motivate the use of a
longer time period.
Report and motivate the
chosen time period.
Report and motivate the
chosen time period.
Report on trends and
changes in feed
materials composition
and nutritional analysis
data.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 68/2013 of 16 January 2013 on the Catalogue of feed materials
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/animalnutrition/feedadditives/docs/comm_register_feed_additives_183103.pdf
4
24
5.3.2
Nutritional analysis data
The nutritional analysis data is especially relevant for PEF studies for food producing animals. The
nutritional analysis data needed for the purpose of the PEF study are:
•
•
•
•
•
Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P) content in g/kg
Ash
Copper (Cu), Zinc (Zn) content in g/kg
Gross Energy (MJ/kg net calorific value or LHV) and digestible energy fraction 5 (% of gross
energy)
Biogenic and Fossil carbon content, listed separately
The provision of the biogenic and fossil carbon content – although not strictly a nutritional property is required to complete the assessment of carbon related emissions in later life cycle stages.
When a feed additive or a mixture of feed additives is incorporated in the compound feed, this
information shall be part of the nutritional analysis data, if its addition has an impact on the
environmental footprint of the farm (by e.g. improving the animal performance or reducing the
emissions). With the indication of the presence of the feed additive or the mixture of feed additives,
an estimation of the potential effect on the relevant criteria should be provided. The latter should be
expressed as a range of improvement, in % of the current performance / emission on the farm and
appropriately substantiated.
The data for Nitrogen (N), Phosphorous (P) can be obtained by calculation where the share of feed
ingredients is multiplied with the typical or actual composition of the feed ingredients. Typical
nutritional analysis data can be found in country datasets or if not available
at http://www.feedipedia.org/. Actual composition data are those measured by the feed company
during the year.
The data for Zinc and Copper can be generated by calculation where the share of feed materials (so
not the additives) is multiplied with the typical or actual Zn and Copper composition of the feed
ingredients. On top of this the addition of Zinc and Copper from mineral additives shall be added.
Here the actual additions shall be used. The gross energy values, biogenic and fossil carbon shall be
calculated following guidance provided in annex 6 or using a more detailed method.
The method of nutritional analysis, using typical or actual values and applying the default or more
detailed method for gross energy, shall be reported.
The digestible energy as a percentage of the gross energy shall be reported. However, rather than
providing a single value, it is allowed to provide the digestible energy as a range. The boundaries of
this range should be meaningful, and depend on the animal type for which the feed is intended.
5
The digestible energy varies per animal species.
25
5.3.3
Feed mill operation data
The data mentioned in Table 5-4 shall be collected. The data should be recorded according to the
format in the table. In the fourth column, the method of measurement should be explained. This
includes the sources of information and any conversion of information and related assumptions.
Table 5-4: Collection of activity data at the feed mill
Activity data
Unit per ton of feed
out
Electricity use
Gas use
Heat use
Other energy inputs
Water
Packaging (only in case of
feed sold in small units e.g.
25 kg bags of calf feed )
Quantity
Source and method
of measurement (if
relevant)
kWh
MJ LHV
MJ LHV
MJ LHV
(specify type)
3
m
(specify type)
Kg
(specify type)
Data can be derived on different levels of accurateness which needs to be determined in relation to
the scope of the study.
If the feed operation is not part of assessing differences in a comparison between alternatives or
changes in time the minimum level of accurateness shall be average feed mill data determined for 1
year of normal operation. (Normal operation is data corrected for calamities).
If comparisons are made (between alternatives or in time) that include changes in the feed mill
operation (e.g. pelleting or not, temperature, pressure etc.) specific feed mill processing data shall be
collected. This can either be done on the basis of measurements or an analysis where use of energy
and auxiliary materials is derived on technical specifications of equipment. Also if specific data are
collected all use of energy and auxiliary materials of the feed mill shall be divided over the specific
products.
Thus any estimate of specific energy and auxiliary materials use for a feed product shall be done on
the basis of allocating the use of the complete factory to sub-processes, also the processes of a
general nature such as lighting, heating, office equipment, etc. How this is done shall be motivated
and recorded by the PEF operator.
26
Data Quality Scoring and minimum data quality level
Minimum data quality is 3 if no comparison is involved. If data are important for comparison
minimum data quality is 1.6. See Table 5-5 for data quality rating system.
Table 5-5: Data Quality Rating system.
Quality Quality
C
level
rating
TiR
P
6
Very
good
1
All
data
points as
mentioned
in Table
5.2
Data
cover
exactly the time
period in the scope
of the study
≤ 10%
Good
2
All
data
points as
mentioned
in Table
5.2, except
water
Data partially cover
the time period in
the scope of the
study
10% to
20%
Fair
3
Only
electricity
and gas
20% to
30%
Poor
4
Only
electricity
use
Data are not older
than 2 years with
respect to the time
period in the scope
of the study
Data are not older
than 4 years with
respect to the time
period in the scope
of the study
30% to
50%
Very
poor
5
No energy
use data
Data are not older
than 6 years with
respect to the time
period in the scope
of the study
> 50%
TeR
GR
The
technology(ies)
is/are specific
for the feed
product(s) in
scope based
on
measurements
The
technology(ies)
is/are specific
for
the
product(s) in
scope based
on assigning
overall energy
and materials
use
Average feed
mill data is
used
The data concern
the specific feed
mill(s)
of
production
in
scope of study on
the
basis
of
weighted share
EoL (related to
packaging, only
if feed is sold in
small quantities)
The EoL formula
is implemented
country specific
The data concern
the specific feed
mill(s)
of
production
in
scope of study
but unweighted
The EoL formula
is implemented
with European
averages
…
NO PEF
The data concern
average company
data (not being
the scope of the
study)
NO PEF
NO PEF
NO PEF
The EoL formula
is
not
implemented
…
The data quality score for the feed mill operation DQRfm is:
DQRfm =
TiR + TeR + GR + C + P + EoL
6
TeR: Technological-Representativeness
TiR: Time-Representativeness
P: Precision/uncertainty
GR: Geographical-Representativeness
C: Completeness
EoL: End-of Life Formula
6
The reference time is the one when data have been originally collected and not the publication/calculation
date. In case there are multiple data, the oldest is the one against which the calculation should be made.
27
5.3.4
Outbound transport to farm (feed user)
This section will be updated to take into account data on energy and transport which became
available recently.
If actual fuel use data of outbound transport can be collected, because there is a suitable accounting
system in place, these data shall be used. Fuel use data will be connected to secondary LCI data for
fuel production and combustion7. See Table 5-6 for a format that can be used for data collection.
If no fuel use data is available, transport emissions can be estimated by collecting activity data on
transport distance (based on average distance to the farms supplied by the mill, unless more
accurate data is available), transport vehicles, load fractions, load fraction of the return trip and
share of biofuel use. With this information transport inventories can be selected in the secondary
database 8.
Table 5-6: Data collection for feed transport to farm if fuel use can be collected
Activity data
Unit
Quantity
Technology
Source
and
(e.g. EURO- method
of
class 1, 2, 3, measurement (if
etc.)
relevant)
Fuel use (type 1)
unit/tonne delivered
feed (specify unit)
Fuel use (type 2)
unit/tonne delivered
feed (specify unit)
Fuel use (type 3)
unit/tonne delivered
feed (specify unit)
Fuel use (type 4)
unit/tonne delivered
feed (specify unit)
Table 5-7: Data collection for feed transport if information on actual fuel use cannot be collected
Activity data
Unit
Quantity
Source and method
of measurement (if
relevant)
Vehicle type 1 share %
[-]
Tonne
•
Load capacity
EURO-class
•
Technology
Km
•
Distance per trip
%
•
Load fraction
•
Empty
return %
transport
%
•
% biofuel
Vehicle type 2 share % etc.
The load capacity and the EURO-class are the basic parameters that define the emissions profile of
the transport vehicle. The other parameters affect its efficiency.
7
8
This secondary data source has been acquired by the EC but is not available yet
The level of detail and PEF compliance of secondary data for transport differ. It depends on the acquired secondary
dataset which LCI data for transport should be selected. In the final version of the PEFCR specific further guidance on
secondary data selection for transport will be given.
28
Data Quality Scoring and minimum data quality level
Minimum data quality is 3 if no comparison is involved. If data are important for comparison
minimum data quality is 1.6. If the data quality level of 3 is not achieved, default values shall be
applied for transport. The data quality rating system for transport shall be conducted according to
Table 5-8.
Table 5-8: Data quality rating system for transport.
Quality Quality
C
TiR
level
rating
Very
good 9
1
Good
2
Fair
3
Poor
4
Very
poor
5
P (related
to
distance)e
TeR
(related to transport
means and logistic
parameters)
The
technology(ies)
is/are
specific
for
transport of
feed
product(s) in scope
GR related to
transport distances
Data on actual
fuel use, fuel
composition
and
technology
(EURO 1-6)
Data on actual
fuel use
Data 10
cover
exactly the time
period in the scope
of the study
≤ 10%
Data
partially
cover the time
period in the scope
of the study
10%
20%
to
The
technology(ies)
is/are companies feed
transport
Data
on
transport
distance and
transport
means
Data
on
transport
distance
Data are not older
than 2 years with
respect to the time
period in the scope
of the study
Data are not older
than 4 years with
respect to the time
period in the scope
of the study
20%
30%
to
The
technology(ies)
is/are
representing
countries feed transport
in scope
30%
50%
to
The
technology(ies)
is/are
representing
countries transport of
agricultural products
The
data
concern
country averages
No data
Data are not older
than 6 years with
respect to the time
period in the scope
of the study
> 50%
The
technology(ies)
is/are representing EU
transport of agricultural
products
The
data
concern
European averages
The data concern feed
transport
scenarios
specific for the feed and
feed mill in scope based
on weighted average.
The data concern feed
transport
scenarios
specific for the feed in
scope
based
on
company average
The
data
concern
average company data
(not being the scope of
the study)
The data quality score for outbound transport DQRo is:
DQRo =
TiR + TeR + GR + C + P
5
TeR: Technological-Representativeness
TiR: Time-Representativeness
P: Precision/uncertainty
9
GR:
Geographical-Representativeness
C: Completeness
In some cases referred to as “excellent”
The reference time is the one when data have been originally collected and not the publication/calculation
date. In case there are multiple data, the oldest is the one against which the calculation should be made.
10
29
5.3.5
Data of (inbound) transport to feed mill
Feed business operators producers shall collect the following information of logistics from their
supply of feed materials if they can know the origin of production.
•
•
The last production location of the feed ingredient before transport to the feed mill and its
distance to the feed mill (in case of a processed material this is the processing plant 11, in case
of a crop this is the location of cultivation).
The average transport scenario of the feed ingredient differentiated per transport means.
Table 5-9 gives an example how this could look like.
Table 5-9: Example of transport data to be collected from suppliers of the feed materials per feed material.
Activity data
Unit
Quantity
Source and method of measurement (if
relevant)
Feed material A
Share
20%
Internal procurement records (3 years
•
Supplier 1
average)
o Transport means x
Truck
32 tonnes Information from supplier
load
capacity
o Distance
Km
150
Distance of fastest route determined by
route planner software …
o Load fraction
%
100%
Information from supplier
o Load fraction return
%
100%
There is no additional information collected
so worst case assumption is applied
o Transport means y
Barge
1000 tonnes Information from supplier
o Distance
Km
300
Distance of fastest route determined by
route planner software …
o Load fraction
%
100%
o Load fraction return
%
100%
•
Supplier 2
o Transport means x
Truck
32 tonnes
Information from supplier
o Distance
Km
420
Distance of fastest route determined by
route planner software …
o Load fraction
%
100%
Information from supplier
o Load fraction return
%
100%
There is no additional information collected
so worst case assumption is applied
Etc.
If the feed business operator cannot determine the transport distances and modes, default data on
distances and modes can be used (however production location still needs to be known), see annex
7. The data quality score for inbound transport DQRi can be determined using Table 5-8 and the
following formula:
TiR + TeR + GR + C + P
DQRi =
5
TeR: Technological-Representativeness
TiR: Time-Representativeness
P: Precision/uncertainty
GR: Geographical-Representativeness
C: Completeness
11
For processed ingredient, the first step of transport, from the place of cultivation to the place of processing is
covered by the secondary databases for feed ingredients, see section 5.4
30
5.3.6
Feed ingredient production process
The environmental footprint of a cradle to gate feed product is mainly determined by the
environmental footprint of its feed ingredients. In many cases secondary data will be used, as the
process is not run or under the control of the company applying the PEFCR. However, when
considered relevant and feasible, it is possible to model the production of feed ingredients and to
use primary data instead of secondary data. Replacing secondary data for feed ingredients shall fulfil
the same requirements described in the sections 5.3.6.1 and 5.3.6.2.
5.3.6.1 Cultivation
The modelling requirements of this section shall apply to any primary cultivation data replacing
default secondary data in background processes if considered feasible and relevant:
This section summarizes and translates the LEAP guidelines (FAO LEAP, 2015) to PEFCR requirements.
Further guidance on how to do the assessment in practice can be found in the LEAP guidelines.
Cultivation includes all field and storage operations until the product is being sent for transport to
the feed mill or further processing. Cultivation may also involve land use change. For land use
change, the modelling guidelines of PAS 2050:2011 and the supplementary document PAS 20501:2012 for horticultural products shall be followed.
The following inputs shall be quantified per hectare of crop cultivation:
•
Seeds, NPK-fertilizers, manure, fuels, irrigation water, crop protection products(), chemicals,
auxiliary materials taking into account crop rotation and steady state of production (averaging over
more years, see LEAP guidelines and PAS2050/1 (BSI, 2012) for further guidance in case of perennial
crops)
•
For the LCIs of production and logistics of agricultural inputs (fertilizers, crop protection
products, fuels etc.) the EC acquired PEF datasets or the GFLI dataset shall be used.
The following economic outputs shall be quantified per hectare:
•
•
•
•
•
Main crop product (mass, DM, financial value, gross energy content (LHV))
Co-product(s) (mass, DM, financial value, gross energy content (LHV))
Residual materials that remain on the field or in soil (mass, DM)
Residual materials that are burnt and associated emissions
Waste flows and destination
The following background information shall be collected on region of cultivation and farm
management:
•
•
•
•
Country of production
Blue water consumption in country/region of production
Land transformation in past 20 years according to PAS2050/1 (BSI, 2012)
Description of farm practices (as meta information)
o Farm rotation scheme
o Tillage/ no tillage
o Method of crop protection products application
31
o
Method of manure/fertilizers application
The following outputs shall be quantified per hectare
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Emissions from combustion of fuels
CO 2 emissions related to application of fossil carbon containing products (lime, peat,
etc.)
N 2 O emissions related to manure and fertilizer application and to crop residues NH3
emissions related to manure and fertilizer application
NO 3 emissions to water related to manure and fertilizer application
P emissions to soil and water related manure and fertilizer application
Heavy metals emissions related to manure and fertilizer application on basis of mass
balance approach
Crop protection products emissions
These emissions shall be calculated according to broadly accepted method of calculating emissions,
such as methodologies outlines in IPCC 2006 Guidelines (IPCC, 2006), EEA (European Environment
Agency, 2013) or other reputable source.
All economic inputs and elementary flows (resource use and emissions) per hectare shall be related
to the net yields (after losses) per hectare.
Allocation in case of crop rotation and co-production (e.g. wheat and straw) shall be treated
according to the decision-tree and recommendations mentioned in the LEAP guidelines.
The requirements of the tender for Feed LCI datasets recently published may trigger an update of
this section.
32
5.3.6.2 Processing of crops
When considered relevant and feasible, it is possible to model the production of feed ingredients and
to use primary data instead of secondary. The modelling requirements of this section shall apply to
any primary processing data replacing default secondary data in background processes. For further
guidance see the LEAP guidelines (FAO LEAP, 2015).
The following inputs shall be quantified per tonne of feed ingredient input.
•
•
fuels, electricity, auxiliary materials taking into account steady state of production
(averaging over appropriate period)
for the LCIs of production and logistics of these inputs the EC acquired PEF datasets or
the GFLI dataset shall be used or any other commercial dataset if not available in the
previous two.
The following outputs shall be quantified:
•
•
•
•
Product of interest (mass, DM, financial value, gross energy content (LHV))
Co-product (mass, DM, financial value, gross energy content (LHV))
Residual materials that are considered to have zero value (mass, DM)
Waste flows and destination
The following background information shall be collected on region of production:
•
•
Country of production
Blue water consumption in country/region of production
The following outputs shall be quantified
•
•
Emissions from the combustion of fuels
Process specific emissions to water, air and soil
The requirements of the tender for Feed LCI datasets recently published may trigger an update of
this section.
33
Data Quality Scoring and minimum data quality level
Minimum data quality is 3 if no comparison is involved. If data are important for comparison
minimum data quality shall be 1.6. The data quality is measured with default metrics published in the
guidance document 5.2, see Table 5-10.
Table 5-10: Data quality rating system for feed ingredients production.
Quality Quality
C
TiR
P
level
rating
1
All 15
PEF Data 12 are not ≤ 10%
Very
Impact Categories older than 4 years
good
with respect to
the release date or
latest review date
TeR
GR
The technologies
covered in the
dataset
are
exactly
the
one(s)modelled
The
processes
included in the
dataset are fully
representative for
the
geography
stated in the title
and metadata
The
processes
included in the
dataset are well
representative for
the
geography
stated in the title
and metadata
The
processes
included in the
dataset
are
sufficiently
representative for
the
geography
stated in the title
and metadata
The
processes
included in the
dataset are only
partly
representative for
the
geography
stated in the title
and metadata
The
processes
included in the
dataset are not
representative for
the
geography
stated in the title
and metadata
Good
2
14 PEF Impact
Categories (and
all 10 categories
classified I or II
in
ILCD
are
included 13)
Data are not older
than 6 years with
respect to the
release date or
latest review date
10% to 20%
Fair
3
12-13 PEF Impact
Categories (and
all 10 categories
classified I or II
in
ILCD
are
included)
Data are not older
than 8 years with
respect to the
release date or
latest review date
20% to 30%
Poor
4
10-11 PEF Impact
Categories (and
all those covered
are classified I or
II in ILCD)
Data are not older
than 10 years
with respect to
the release date or
latest review date
30% to 50%
Technology
aspects
are
different
from
what described in
the
title
and
metadata
Very
poor
5
Less than 10 PEF
Impact Categories
(and all those
covered
are
classified I or II
in ILCD)
Data are older
than 10 years
with respect to
the release date or
latest review date
> 50%
Technology
aspects
are
completely
different
from
what described in
the
title
and
metadata
12
The technologies
modelled
are
included in the
mix
of
technologies
covered by the
dataset
The technologies
modelled
are
representative of
the
average
technology used
for
similar
processes
The reference time is the one when data have been originally collected and not the publication/calculation
date. In case there are multiple data, the oldest is the one against which the calculation should be made.
13
The 10 impact categories classified in ILCD Handbook as category I or II are : Climate change, Ozone depletion,
particulate matter, ionizing radiation human health, photochemical ozone formation, acidification,
eutrophication terrestrial, eutrophication freshwater, eutrophication marine water, resource depletion mineral
fossil and renewable.
34
The data total quality score for the production of a feed ingredients production DQRfp is:
DQRfp =
TiR + TeR + GR + C + P
5
TeR: Technological-Representativeness
TiR: Time-Representativeness
P: Precision/uncertainty
GR: Geographical-Representativeness
C: Completeness
5.4
Secondary data selection
Following the requirement of the PEF guidance, the recommended sources of secondary data are
listed below:
- PEF compliant datasets in the International Life Cycle Data Network: the first source of data is the
European Commission, which has decided to buy LCI datasets, to facilitate the implementation of the
PEFCRs/OEFCRs developed during the Environmental Footprint pilot phase. This process includes
feed LCI datasets, which will be made publically available through the ILCDN. This source of data is
referred to as “EC feed database” in this document
- Global Feed LCA Institute (GFLI) 14. The Global Feed LCA Institute is an independent feed industry
initiative with the vision to develop a freely and publically available Feed Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
database and tool. The objective of the GFLI is to support meaningful environmental assessment of
livestock products and to stimulate continuous improvement of the environmental performance in
the feed industry. The GFLI data will be PEF compliant. This source of data is referred to as “GFLI
database” in this document.
5.4.1
Select data on feed ingredients production related to BOM
This section gives guidance on which secondary data to use depending on availability of datasets in
the two secondary databases this PEFCR refers to: the EC feed database and the GFLI EU database.
The detailed content of the two data sources will be described in an annex to this PEFCR when the EC
process of buying feed LCI datasets is completed. The EC feed database is always the preferred
option but may not contain all necessary data or not specific for certain countries. In those cases
where more specific data is available in the GFLI EU database, this database shall be used. The figure
below guides the user through the different steps leading to the choice of the secondary database.
This section is setup from the perspective of the PEF operator that collects a BOM (feed ingredients
list) and has the task to match his feed ingredients as good as possible to the datasets available in the
two secondary databases.
14
http://www.ifif.org/pages/t/Global+Feed+LCA+Institute+%28GFLI%29
35
Figure 5-1: Data selection decision tree. Note that in some cases the DQR score for that given process need to be
increased (see box on right)
36
5.4.2
Identification of proxies
In some cases no data is available in the EC or GFLI databases. In that case proxies need to be used.
Using proxies always trigger lower data quality (i.e. higher DQR).
Case 1: the ingredient is available in the EC or GFLI database, but not for the appropriate origin (e.g.
corn from Mexico. Data on corn may be available but not for corn from Mexico)
Proxy: Use the world average for the same ingredient and modify data quality according to Figure
5-1. Error! Reference source not found.
Case 2: for a given ingredient (processed or unprocessed), there is no data available in the EC
database nor in the GFLI database
Proxy: Use the average of the appropriate group of ingredients according to GFLI classification and
increase data quality according to Figure 5-1Error! Reference source not found.. The GFLI will
provide these group average data sets, e.g. a proxy dataset for “Vegetable meals”.
The use of proxy data shall be reported.
5.4.3
Select secondary energy production data to connect to primary
activity data
Further guidance will be given here after publication of the energy and transport data by the EC
5.4.4
Select secondary transport data to connect to primary activity data
Further guidance will be given here after publication of the energy and transport data by the EC
37
5.5
Calculating the overall data quality score
If all data quality scores per process fulfill the minimum requirements an overall score shall be
calculated per environmental impact by
The overall data quality score DQRtotal i is calculated per environmental impact on the basis of the
following formula:
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑙𝑖 = � 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 ∗ 𝑎𝑝𝑝 + � 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 ∗ 𝑏𝑝𝑝 + � 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 ∗ 𝑐𝑝𝑝 + � 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 ∗ 𝑑𝑝𝑝
+ � 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 ∗ 𝑒𝑝𝑝
Where:
• 𝑎𝑝𝑝 , 𝑏𝑝𝑝 , 𝑐𝑝𝑝 , 𝑑𝑝𝑝 , 𝑒𝑝𝑝 = The relative contribution of process p to impact i in the respective.
•
•
•
•
•
DQRfm = DQR of feed mill operation data(s); a =contribution of feed mill operation(s) to
Environmental Impact (EI) score
DQRo= DQR outbound transport(s);
DQRi = DQR of inbound transport(s);
DQRfip = DQR of feed ingredient(s) primary data;
DQRfis =DQR of feed ingredient(s) secondary data;
∑𝑝 𝑎𝑝𝑝 + ∑𝑝 𝑏𝑝𝑝 + ∑𝑝 𝑐𝑝𝑝 + ∑𝑝 𝑑𝑝𝑝 + ∑𝑝 𝑒𝑝𝑝 = 1
And
Meaning that the relative contributions of all processes combined should equal 1, for every impact
category.
The overall data quality score (DQRtotal) can then be calculated by calculating the average of the
scores per impact category. In this calculation it is assumed that the data quality score of secondary
databases for energy production and transport processes does not negatively affect any of the DQRs
calculated according to this PEFCR. The DQR overall values and the breakdown to the 5 calculated
DQRs shall be reported per impact category, and averaged to determine the overall DQR. The
minimum data quality requirements per life cycle stage are listed in Table 5-11.
Table 5-11: Data quality requirements.
Required minimum level
DQR
Total
DQRfm
Feed mill
DQRo
Outbound
transport
DQR1
Inbound
transport
3
3 or 1.6
3 - 1.6
3 - 1.6
DQRfip
Feed
ingredient
primary
3 -1.6
DQRfis
Feed
ingredient
secondary
3
5.6
Reporting data gaps and proxies
Proxies that are made in case of filling in data gaps shall be reported with their effect on the data
quality score.
5.7
Minimum data quality level for PEF communication
Results shall not be communicated externally as a PEF compliant study if the minimum data quality
levels are not met.
38
5.8
End-of-life stage
In case of packed feed ingredients or compound feed, the packaging materials will be discarded at
the farm of use for which the PEF End of Life Formula should be applied by the LCA operator for the
study. The default end of life formula shall be used and if there is no data collected the default worst
case assumptions shall be applied: there is no secondary material used during production and no
recycling of materials after use.
Q 
R
R 
 R1 
*
1 −  × EV + 1 × E recycled + 2 ×  E recyclingEoL − E V × S  +
QP 
2 
2
2 

R
 R

R3 × (E ER − LHV × X ER ,heat × E SE ,heat − LHV × X ER ,elec × E SE ,elec ) + 1 − 2 − R3  E D − 1 × E D*
2
2


5.9
Requirements for multifunctional products and multiproduct processes allocation
Allocation shall be conducted according to the LEAP guidelines. This implies;
Transport
Allocation of empty transport kilometers shall be done on the basis of the average load factor of the
transport that is under study. If no supporting information is available, it shall be assumed that 100
percent additional transport is needed for empty return (check with default values in sections 5.3.4
and 5.3.5).
Allocation of transport emissions to transported products shall be done on the basis of physical
causality, such as mass share, unless the density of the transported product is significantly lower than
average so that the volume transported is less than the maximum load.
Processing of farm products to feed materials
The baseline allocation for allocation at processing is Economic and two physical alternatives shall be
calculated in the sensitivity assessment to ensure that the influence of allocation on the results is
transparent. Economic allocation will be conducted on the basis of the method and default allocation
fractions in Annex 10 unless it is clear that the process under study deviates from the default
processes. Then economic allocation will be done according to the procedure as being explained in
the LEAP guidelines for feed.
Allocation of co-products from a crop at the farm
The baseline allocation for allocation at processing is Economic and two physical alternatives shall be
calculated in the sensitivity assessment to ensure that the influence of allocation on the results is
transparent. Economic allocation will be conducted on the basis of the method and default allocation
fractions in Annex 10.
Allocation issues related to assigning company data to production systems
The LEAP feed guidelines give detailed guidance in chapter 8 on how to assign company data (on
farms and processing plants) to productions systems. These shall be followed.
39
6.
Benchmark and classes of environmental performance
Feed is an essential input for the production of food-producing animals. It is basically an intermediate
product whose composition varies depending on the desired response of the animal and associated
nutritional requirements depending and the availability and prices of feed ingredients. Measuring the
impacts associated with the production of feed, as well as the feed performance on the farm is
necessary in order to achieve meaningful LCAs of food-producing animals.
The different types of compound feed have different applications and different functions. Foodproducing animals are fed differently according to various parameters such as animal species, stage
of development, and other farm-specific conditions (e.g. dairy feed is formulated to balance the diet
with forages produced on the farm).
The feed performance in terms of production per unit of feed is closely linked with farm
management practices. In other words, the performance of the same feed used in two similar farms
can vary significantly according to the farm’s specific conditions (breed, animal health status; etc.…)
and management. This is extremely important to bear in mind when considering the improvement of
the environmental performance of feed production. Reducing the environmental footprint of feed
production without taking into account the potential consequences on its efficiency in the use phase
would be very counterproductive.
Customers of compound feed are professional livestock farmers meaning that communication
relative to compound feed is on a business to business basis only.
Professional livestock farmers do not require a simplified comparison with a representative product
which does not fulfil the same function as the feed they have bought. The PEF profile of the
representative product can nevertheless be useful to check whether the results of a PEF study are
credible and match in terms of order of magnitude.
Following the modular approach implemented in this PEFCR, the livestock farmers (or other relevant
downstream partner) will be provided with the full results of upstream emissions of feed up to the
delivery to the farm (for all impact categories) and with the necessary information for LCA modelling
of on-farm feed use.
The comparison of the PEF profiles of different compound feeds shall therefore:
•
•
only take place when it is clear that they fulfil the same function, i.e. in the context of cradle
to grave PEF study of identical animal products (e.g. one kilogramme of eggs on similar
farms with two types of feed) and;
only be interpreted as part of the complete interpretation of the PEF profile of the animal
product at stake.
The possibility to develop a benchmark for animal products, and the potential limitations are
described in the animal products PEFCRs.
40
7.
Interpretation
The interpretation of the PEF results shall integrate the following elements:
-
Assessment of the robustness of the PEF model
Identification of hotspots
Estimation of uncertainty and
Conclusions, recommendations and limitations
7.1
Robustness of the PEF model
The PEF results rely on impact assessment methods which are not equally robust. They can be
classified as follows:
High robustness
-
Climate change
Ozone depletion
Particulate matter
Medium robustness
-
Ionizing radiation
Photochemical ozone formation
Resource depletion (fossil – mineral)
Acidification
Eutrophication (marine, terrestrial, freshwater)
Low robustness
-
Human toxicity (cancer and non-cancer)
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Land use
Water resource depletion
During the EF pilot phase, particular attention was paid to the toxicity and ecotoxicity related impacts
which rely on USEtox. The results for these impact categories are currently not considered robust
enough to support benchmarking and public communication.
7.2
Identification of hotspots
For each impact category, hot spots shall be identified concerning life cycle stages, process and
elementary flow. In each case, the assessment shall account for the cumulative required to reach at
least 50% to any impact category before normalisation and weighting (from the most contributing in
descending order)
The procedure to identify hotspots is detailed in Annex XX
41
7.3
Estimation of uncertainties
The robustness of the impact assessment methods shall be taken into account when estimating the
uncertainty (see previous section).
In addition, the uncertainties associated with the data robustness shall also be reported:
-
Uncertainty related to primary data collection
Uncertainty associated with use of secondary data, either from the EC database or from the
GFLI database.
7.4
Conclusions, limitations and recommendations
The conclusions of the PEF study shall always be accompanied with a clear description on the
limitations of the study.
The list below is a non-exhaustive compilation of limiting factors for a PEF study
-
Assumptions made throughout the study
Data gaps in secondary database
To be expanded
42
8.
Reporting, Disclosure and Communication
8.1
Context
Compound feed is an intermediate product sold to professional livestock farmers. At this stage,
further discussion is needed to clarify the target of the communication of the environmental
performance of compound feed. The most straightforward target group are the farmers. In the
situation where the results of a compound feed PEF study are used to support the communication of
the environmental performance of animal products, the possibility to communicate directly from the
feed company to the meat/dairy/egg/fish company could also be envisaged.
The communication of environmental information along the feed and food supply chain is described
in the figure below.
Figure 8-1: Communication of environmental information along the feed and food supply chain.
The purple arrows describe the potential flows of communication of environmental information from
a feed company to its partners. As direct customer, the livestock farmer is considered as the main
target for communication. In the situation where the results of a compound feed PEF study are used
to support the communication of the environmental performance of animal products, the possibility
to communicate directly from the feed company to the meat/dairy/egg/fish company can also be
envisaged. Finally, direct communication from feed company to retailer can also happen, although
less common.
During the communication testing phase, the below-described PEF declaration will be tested, mainly
with farmers but to the possible extent, also with animal products companies. Focus group
discussions will also be organised with farmers and/or animal products companies, if possible.
43
8.2
Recommendation for communication of environmental information
The current recommendations for communicating the PEF results are listed below. They may vary
according to the purpose of the study.
Table 8-1: recommended communication vehicles, dependent on purpose.
Purpose
Cradle to gate Feed PEF study to be used for
animal products PEF study
Cradle to gate Feed PEF study with external
communication
Cradle to gate Feed PEF study including product
comparison
Cradle to gate Feed PEF study for performance
tracking
Communication vehicle
PEF declaration supported by PEF external
communication report
PEF declaration supported by PEF external
communication report
PEF external communication report
PEF performance tracking report
8.2.1 PEF external communication report
A template for PEF external communication report is available in chapter 8 of the PEF Guide (may be
integrated as an annex of the final PEFCR)
8.2.2 PEF declaration
From an intellectual property perspective, the information relative to the nutritional analysis data
(see section 5.3.2) may be sensitive. A stepwise approach is therefore recommended for the
development of a Feed PEF declaration
o
o
Step 1 PEF declaration, containing LCA results of cradle to gate Feed PEF study, but
not meant for further LCA modelling of on-farm activities. This Step 1 PEF declaration
would not contain sensitive information on the feed composition
Step 2: “complete” PEF declaration, with additional information necessary for
modelling of on-farm activities. This complete PEF declaration would be available
upon request and the conditions of disclosure would be discussed in a business to
business bilateral relationship.
8.2.3 PEF performance tracking report
The main characteristics of a PEF performance tracking report are described in section 3.14.2 of the
PEF Guidance (may be integrated as an annex of the final PEFCR).
44
9.
Verification
This section will be completed when the consolidated verification report of the supporting studies for
all pilots will be available.
According to ISO 14044 and to the PEF Guide, any PEF study claiming to be in line with the PEF Guide
and any PEF study for external communication shall be critically reviewed in order to ensure that
-
The methods used to carry out the PEF study are consistent with the PEF Guide
The methods used to carry out the PEF study are scientifically and technically valid
The data used are appropriate, reasonable and met the defined data quality requirements
The interpretation of results reflects the limitations identified
The study report is transparent, accurate and consistent
The development of a PEFCR should simplify the review process. This however needs to be confirmed
by the consolidated report on the verification of the supporting studies.
Likewise, when secondary data are used from a source which has been acknowledged as PEF
compliant, these data shall not be verified further, especially regarding methodological consistency,
completeness and uncertainty.
The Feed Technical Secretariat recommends focusing the verification (critical review) on the
following aspects
-
Is the list of feed ingredients representative for the feed under study, and does it accurately
reflect the time related variability?
Is the list of feed ingredients correctly connected to the available secondary data?
If proxies have been used, are these determined in accordance to the procedures described
in this PEFCR, and has the data quality been modified accordingly?
45
10.
Reference literature
European Commission. (2013). 2013/179/EU: Commission Recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the
use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental
performance of products and organisations. Official Journal of the European Union.
European Commission. (2016). Guidance for the implementation of the EU Product Environmental
Footprint (PEF) during the Environmental Footprint (EF) pilot phase - draft version 5.2.
FAO LEAP. (2015). Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains - Guidelines for
assessment. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/resources/resources/en/
Food SCP RT. (2013). ENVIFOOD Protocol Environmental Assessment of Food and Drink Protocol.
Brussels, Belgium.
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., Schryver, A. De, Struijs, J., & Zelm, R. Van. (2009). ReCiPe
2008 A life cycle assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the
midpoint and the endpoint level. Report 1 Characterisation. Den Haag.
JRC, & European Commission. (2015). Baseline Approaches for the Cross-Cutting Issues of the Cattle
Related Product Environmental Footprint Pilots in the Context of the Pilot Phase.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2010). Global diversity Outlook 3.
Technical Secretariat for the Feed Pilot. (2015). PEF screening report in the context of the EU Product
Environmental Footprint Category Rules ( PEFCR ) Pilots - Feed for food producing animals.
Technical Secretatiat for the Feed pilot. (2014). Feed pilot - scope and representative product.
Technical Secretatiat for the Feed pilot. (2015). PEFCR Feed for food producing animals - Draft
version 1.1 for EF Steering Committee, (October), 1–40.
11.
Supporting information for the PEFCR
This section will be completed at a later stage.
46
List of annexes
Annex 1 – Representative product
The screening report and its annexes are available from the stakeholders’ workspace of the wiki
page.
Annex 2 – Supporting studies
Available from the stakeholders’ workspace of the wiki page.
Annex 3 – Main lessons learnt from the supporting studies
Annex 4 – summary of main variations of the requirements defined in this PEFCR, according to the
purpose of the study
Annex 5 – Situations which require a modification of the system boundaries
Annex 6 – Guidance for the calculation of carbon content and gross energy
This section will be completed at a later stage
Annex 7 – Default data for transport
This section will be completed at a later stage, and will contain a list of default distances and modes
between different locations (e.g. the average transport distance between Malaysia and Germany,
and default transport modes or the average transport distance and mode for transport within
France)
Annex 8 – Background data
This section will be completed at a later stage, in relation with the tender procedure for LCI datasets
Annex 9 – Template for PEF declaration
Annex 10 - Method and default allocation fractions for feed ingredients
This section will provide a list of default allocation fractions and guidance on how to use this to
calculate the allocation percentages for a list of common feed ingredients.
47
Annex 3
Main lessons learnt from the supporting studies
- The historical approach, with requirements to calculate an average formula for a
period of three years, is extremely difficult to implement. The concern was
expressed that an average based on such a long period was not representative of
the current situation. The fact that the composition of some feeds is more stable
than others over time is another factor to take into account.
- The sequence of recommendations should be revised, since data collection and
data quality assessment are often performed one after the other
- The benchmarking approach is not meaningful for an intermediate product such as
compound feed
- The results related to toxicity and eco-toxicity are difficult to understand, interpret
and thus communicate
- The types of transport proposed are difficult to understand for a non-expert
- Data gaps in databases, in particular for additives, vitamins and minerals
- Identifying the countries of origin for all the feed ingredients is also challenging, even
with collaboration of suppliers. It is however likely that this information will be
requested on a more and more regular basis. This will be challenging to achieve in
the short to medium term as it is not a legal requirement and hence will have
commercial implications.
- It is difficult to link energy consumption in a feed mill to a specific product (but this is
currently not required in the PEFCR)
- Requirements should be defined in a way that is auditable
48
Annex 4: summary of main variations of the requirements defined in this PEFCR, according to the
purpose of the study
Different requirements apply according to the purpose of the PEF study. The table below shows the
relation between purposes and PEFCR requirements and the sections where they are described. The
rationale of this distinction in purposes is that methodology, accuracy and effort for data collection
should be proportionate to the purpose of the study.
Overview of potential purposes of PEF study on feed in relation to requirements
Purpose 1: Feed PEF
study
to
provide
information for animal
PEF study
Purpose 2. Cradle to
gate PEF study
without comparison
System
boundaries
[CH 4.5]
Additional
modelling
[CH 4.7]
Type of data
[CH 5]
System boundaries can
be adapted to goal of
study
To be determined per
animal PEF study
Default
system
boundaries
To be determined per
animal PEF study
Primary data for
feed mill operation.
Rest
can
be
secondary data
Communication
[CH. 8]
PEF
declaration
supported
by
PEF
external
communication report
PEF
declaration
supported by PEF
external
communication
report
NO
49
3. Cradle to gate PEF study including a comparison:
3a comparison between
existing
or
new
alternative products
System boundaries can
be adapted to goal of
study
Depending
on
comparison
3b comparison in time
(trend monitoring)
Primary data for feed
mill operation;
Primary data for other
processes shall be
collected if they are
relevant for comparison
PEF
external
communication report
Primary data for feed mill
operation;
Primary data for other
processes shall be collected
if they are relevant for
comparison
PEF performance tracking
report
System boundaries can be
adapted to goal of study
Depending on comparison
Annex 5: Situations which require a modification of the system boundaries
Situation
Solution
1. the nutritional value or composition of the Full Lifecycle approach on the basis of measured
feed changes in a way so that it affects the or estimated use phase at production of food
production performance of food producing producing animals.
animals,
2. the chemical composition of the feed
changes so that it affects the environmental
performance of the farming systems where
the feed is consumed (including digestion
and manure management) or where the
manure is applied,
3. There is an intentional change:
• in consumption of constrained /residual coproducts or
• in origin of supply of feed material
production on a scale that requires
additional LCA modelling (see below for
further explanation).
Full Lifecycle approach applying parameterized
models for digestion and manure management.
Lifecycle shall be extended with animal manure
application if relevant changes occur due to
content of N, P, Zn and Cu in manure.
Cradle to gate life cycle but with additional
modelling to calculate impacts related to the
supply and demand of raw materials or
reallocation of processes.
“If the change in the feed lifecycle involves
more than 5% of the national supply of a raw
material or area for cultivation then the
need for additional LCA modelling should be
considered.”
Additional explanation for situation 3
Introducing a threshold in relation to the scale of national production volume/area of a feed material
follows the line of reasoning in the ILCD LCA guide where a split between micro and meso/macro
level is made. The ILCD guide does not give concrete recommendations that help the LCA user the
scale in quantitative terms. The threshold of 5% is arbitrary but it is more practical than the ILCD
qualitative approach and gives the PEFCR user a tool to prove that additional modelling is not
required for his study.
The 5% threshold is sometimes lower than for instance the annual fluctuations in European feed
material availability. The yields of crops in a certain country and the related production volume of the
processed crops can fluctuate 15% or more over the years [sugar and grain statistics]. This means
that the availability of feed materials and their price also strongly fluctuate through the years. The
5% is a considerable part of the normal fluctuation but at the same time it is still far away from the
more extreme fluctuations.
The introduction of rape seed cultivation in Europe for bio-fuels is an interesting example. This did
not have big implications on land use and shifts in commodity flows right away but it got implications
50
when it grew to a certain scale. It triggered for instance the replacement of significant volumes of
imported soybean meal by domestic rapeseed meal in compound feed
The biofuels case has been extensively assessed and could give a bit more information on if and how
a threshold should be defined.
Example regarding using additional constrained feed materials.
A feed company reduces the environmental impact of its dairy feed by using in the composition of
the dairy feed on average 10% dried sugar beet pulp and 15% palm kernel expeller. Normally the
composition would on average be 6% dried sugar beet pulp and 10% palm kernel expeller. The
company is located in the Netherland and sells 2 Mt of this dairy feed. The dried beet pulp is bought
in the Netherlands and the additional 4% equals to 80.000 ton dried beet pulp which is nearly 10% of
the Dutch market of available beet pulp. The palm kernel expeller is bought from Malaysia that
produces 2.4 Mt of expeller per year. So the 5% additional expeller equals 100.000 ton which is 4% of
Malaysian production. In this case, the feed company has to assess if its additional use of dried beet
pulp leads to changes in the market of processing and use of beet pulp that changes the initial
estimate of improved environmental performance. The increased demand of dried beet pulp will not
affect the amount of sugar production due to the low contribution to revenues of a sugar factory. So
there should then be a change in the processing of beet pulp or the destination of the pulp. There
could be an increased drying of beet pulp at the cost of fresh beet pulp that was directly sold to
(other) dairy farms. In this case energy use becomes higher (the impact of extra drying is bigger than
reduced transport) and increases the environmental impact. (Also the feeding performance of wet
and dry beet pulp can be different). So the additional assessment would show that the substantial
increased use of dried beet pulp cannot be considered as an environmental improvement and should
not be communicated as such.
51
Annex 7: Default activity data for transport
This annex will contain a list of default transport activity data and background datasets to be used
when no primary data is available. How this annex will be filled, depends on the background data
that will become available as a result of the EC tender.
52
Annex 9: Template for PEF declaration
Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) declaration for [name of the product] according to Product
Environmental Footprint Category Rules Feed for food-producing animals [reference of the PEFCR]
Date of the declaration
Time Validity
Purpose of the study
Company introduction: identification of the organization making the PEF declaration
Picture of production site
Name of the company
Address
Other relevant information
(optional)
Product identification
Trade name
Reference
Other common name of the product
Description of the product (e.g. broiler feed)
Intended use of the product
Picture of the product
(recommended)
53
Description of the PEF study
Functional unit
Scope
System boundaries
Visual description of system boundaries
(recommended)
Information on life cycle stages which are not considered, if the study deviates from the PEFCR
Statement that environmental declarations from different programmes may not be comparable
Additional
PEF-related
general
information
can
be
here: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/communication/what_is_pef.htm
found
For explanatory material and supporting information related to the calculations in this study, please
contact: [add contact point]
54
Life Cycle Impact Assessment results (for one tonne of feed delivered to the farm)
Tables presenting characterised results in a written form with absolute figures, total results, and
results per life cycle stage
(recommended)
Table 1 - category I impact categories: high robustness
Impact category
Unit
Climate change
Climate change excluding
land use change
Ozone depletion
Kg CO 2 eq
Kg CO 2 eq
Particulate matter
kg PM2.5 eq
Total
Raw material acquisition
and pre-processing
Feed
production
Delivery to farm
Feed
production
Delivery to farm
Feed
production
Delivery to farm
kg CFC-11 eq
Table 2 - category II impact categories: medium robustness
Impact category
Unit
Acidification
Terrestrial eutrophication
Fresh
water
eutrophication
Marine eutrophication
Photochemical
ozone
formation
Mineral
fossil
and
renewable
resource
depletion
Ionizing radiation
molc H+ eq
molc N eq
kg P eq
Total
Raw material acquisition
and pre-processing
kg N eq
kg NMVOC eq
kg Sb eq
kBq U235 eq
Table 3 - category III impact categories: low robustness
Impact category
Human toxicity, cancer
effects
Human toxicity, noncancer effects
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Water resource depletion
Land use
Unit
Total
Raw material acquisition
and pre-processing
CTUh
CTUh
CTUe
m3 water eq
kg C deficit
Results for less robust impact categories (categories II and III) should be handled with care.
55
Characterised results presented in a visual form, showing the contribution of the different life cycle
stages (recommended)
Optional: normalised results
56
Additional information: biodiversity score (optional)
Discussion needed to identify best format for communication
57
Part 2 of PEF declaration: information needed for further LCA modelling at farm level
(optional, available upon request with conditions of disclosure discussed in B to B relationship)
Nutritional analysis data
Composition parameters
All values per kg “as is”
Dry matter content
Gross energy value
Digestible energy (range)
Carbon biogenic
Carbon fossil
Ash
Phosphorous
Nitrogen
Zinc
Copper
Information on feed delivery
Distance
Transport means
Type of truck, load capacity
Packaging material
If applicable
58