This article, authored by Dr Brett Glencross, was first published in the November 2024 edition of International Aquafeed

About this time last year, I wrote on how increasingly constraining the carbon-footprint of feeds had some marked effects on ingredient choice, and a somewhat smaller impact on the cost of the feed. So, commitments by feed companies to decrease their carbon-footprints by 30% of there abouts are admirable, but it isn’t really costing them much to do that. Based on some recent modelling, using 2024 data, the impacts on a typical salmon feed based on using Global Feed Lifecycle Assessment Institute (www.gfli.org) carbon footprinting data, we could see that a reduction of carbon footprint of 33%, increased formulation cost by 1.2%. However, what this trend is doing is driving up demand for traceability and primary data-based assessments of ingredient footprints, done using approved standardised methodologies.

So why are the methodologies, traceability and primary-data-based aspects of lifecycle assessment (LCA) so important? The reason is that HOW you undertake an LCA analysis can have a big impact on that outcome.  This has been known for some time, and so accordingly there have been various standards set, such as those by the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO), with their ISO 14040 series of standards, which provide some overarching framework on how LCA studies should be undertaken. However, these govern LCA standards overall, but not specifically feed. To address that, the Product Environment Footprint Categorisation Rules (PEFCR) for feed were set up by the Europeans that provided a framework on what inputs and system boundaries had to be included, and some methodological aspects that needed to be applied. In addition to the PEFCR initiative, a the establishment of the Global Feed Lifecyle Assessment Institute (GFLI), enabled a centralised database on the global feed ingredient sector. Notably the GFLI also set further rules and guidelines for a raft of different LCA processes and criteria, and to date it still represents the best and largest pool of LCA data on over 1500 ingredients from around the world. However, the GFLI dataset remains far from perfect.

Much of the data in the GFLI is derived from what we call secondary sources (scientific papers, company reports, etc), usually where someone external to the sector has undertaken a desk-top based assessment using what data they can find. The problem with this is that not only are most of those sources out-of-date, but often key bits of information are missing. To fix this, what we need is referred to as “primary” data. Data direct from the sector involved, and data that is up to date and representative of what is happening on the ground or out at sea. And this leads to the traceability story. Knowing what information is connected to what material is critical. While GFLI based data provides a good foundation to the carbon footprint story, having data on individual products from individual factories, based on specific stocks allows for much more accuracy in the carbon footprinting story. And that requires the connection of key data elements to specific products. What such an assessment and traceability process does then is provide a clear and tangible system for standardising sustainability assessments. And when we share a standard for measuring things, then we establish a basis for comparing sustainability “qualities”, and this creates value opportunities for trading ingredients on those credentials (just as when we agree on methods to measure protein or other nutrients). Through this, we can then see that through rethinking our approach to sustainability, we can then use it to drive value of those ingredients that are more sustainable.