Commissioned by the Dairy Working Group from the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform (SAI Platform) and the European Roundtable for Beef Sustainability, an overview has been made based on literature research and a survey of 28 greenhouse gas mitigation options on dairy and beef farms and their degree of implementation. The mitigation options that have been implemented so far are mainly aiming at improving efficiency and productivity. A majority (63%) of respondents indicate that all or some of their supplying farmers know their individual carbon footprint. The big question is how to stimulate farmers to implement mitigation options.

Commissioned by the European Roundtable for Beef Sustainability, a literature review was conducted on the environmental impact of beef and leather production systems in Europe. The literature review was restricted to the studies that applied attributional LCA methods. The average carbon footprint of 20.5 kg CO2eq per kg carcass (ranged between 7.0 and 45.7 kg CO2eq per kg carcass) was found for beef production in Europe. Our literature scan showed the higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per kg carcass for suckler-based systems compared to the dairy-based system. The GHG emissions of organic farms was almost similar to the non-organic farms. Comparison of a concentrate-based diet with the roughage-based diet showed the lower GHG emissions for concentrate-based diet. The review of studies for beef production systems showed a high potential for mitigating the GHG emissions. Due to high turnover and environmental impacts of leather industry, the literature review was extended to leather production. A high variation was seen in results of leather carbon footprint because of methodological differences (e.g., system boundary and functional unit), quality of product and final use of finished leather. The average carbon footprint of reviewed papers was 24.6 kg CO2eq per m2 finished leather ranged between 7.75 and 53.7 kg CO2eq per m2 finished leather.

Within the framework of the Dutch pilot Mineral concentrate a monitoring program was conducted, subsidised by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, to generate data on the current quality of mineral concentrates, in relation to the criteria of the pilot Mineral concentrate (MC) of the Netherlands, and the performance of their production processes. These criterions are established to ensure high nitrogen use efficiency without an environmental impact of the concentrate. The monitoring was linked to information requested by the EU Joint Research Centre (JRC) to support the development of quality criterions for N fertilisers recovered from animal manure, revered to as RENURE, within the context of the Nitrates Directive. It was also linked to relevant data on the quality of the permeate from reverse osmosis to substantiate quality requirements for discharge on surface water of effluents from manure processing plants. The parameters of the monitoring included primary and secondary nutrients, heavy metals, antibiotics, pathogenic bacteria and viruses. This report presents the results of the monitoring.

Commissioned by the European Livestock and Meat Trading Union, a study was conducted on the evaluation of allocation methods in beef and pork production at slaughterhouse level. This study focussed on the pros and cons of mass and economic fractions and allocation at slaughterhouse level for actual situations. Six slaughterhouses were studied, and the obtained results showed that mass fractions (where the focus is on edible part of slaughtered animal) are more suited to show the environmental performances over time and among slaughterhouses and can be used an incentive to improve the environmental performance of slaughterhouses. The economic allocation method affects the footprint of the edible and non-edible fractions and is more suited to be applied in the commodity chain. Our findings showed that regardless of the choice of allocation method, the use of primary slaughterhouse data for mass fractions of main-, co- and by-products needs to be allowed, which is not the case with the current JRC PEF method (latest update 2019)

In this report we present a model toolbox consisting of the Bio-Economic Farm Models (BEFMs) DairyWise and Farmdyn together with tools that focus on specific farm management aspects to analyse integrated aspects of circular agriculture at farm level. Based on a conceptual model regarding relevant policy questions, indicators and model requirements, knowledge and modelling gaps are pointed at. It is concluded that combined model use can overcome part of the modelling gaps, but not all. The combined model use is demonstrated analysing the impact of a tax on chemical fertiliser on a dairy farm on sandy soil and an arable farm on clay soil. The report ends with recommendations regarding research directions in the field of modelling circular agriculture aspects at farm level, sharing and harmonising key modules and investments in quality and quantity of different networks of model developers and users. We also give recommendations for researchers and modelers who are looking for possibilities of combined model use.

Dairy plays a key role in agricultural sector development in East Africa. To keep this growth continual, the Netherlands Food Partnership (NFP) dairy action agenda together with the Netherlands East Africa Dairy Partnership (NEADAP) initiative have requested for a tool that enables stakeholders to assess and monitor the sustainability of dairy initiatives in East Africa. Sustainability helps producers not only to grow their businesses but also to ensure that resources are preserved for use by future generations. Dairy development should not only emphasize on increasing the production, but should also consider different aspects of sustainability including people, profit and planet. Dairy development needs to contribute to affordable safe and nutritious diets, employment and livelihoods and in sustaining the agroecological base. Sustainable dairy development pathways should address these people-profit-planet objectives simultaneously and their holistic assessment should support practitioners and policy makers reflect on the multiple trade-offs that occur based on the choices being made. There is need for a tool that could support informed discussions on present status, intervention options and the win-wins and trade-offs of these interventions, and also giving recommendations on how best to balance/address trade-offs in dairy farms. It is also important for the tool to consider future climate change impact on well-being, meanwhile public debates on ‘the circular economy’, ‘planet boundaries’ and ‘dietary shift’ in the global North have raised the focus on environmental and health impact of dairy. Meanwhile more consideration is required for resilience, which is becoming more important in the sustainability debate, though not yet covered in some available tools. A growing number of sustainability assessment tools have been developed to support farmers and policy makers in developing sustainable agriculture. Each tool has strengths and weaknesses and therefore selection of suitable tools for the East African context needs to be carefully done. This study assessed 42 sustainability assessment tools that have been developed and used in different countries to monitor people, planet and profit dimensions of dairy farming. Based on the list of eight criteria developed, four tools were identified with a good potential for use in the assessment of sustainability of dairy farming systems in East Africa. These tools include RISE, IDEA, SAFA and PG. These were further evaluated on a more stringent triple P criteria focusing on data requirements, simplicity and user friendliness, reliability of results, and effectiveness. Based on this evaluation, it was concluded that the RISE and SAFA could be the most appropriate existing tools for assessing sustainability of dairy farming in East Africa. However, for generating more robust outputs for the East African context, the selected tool would need to be adjusted by removing less relevant and adding new sub-criteria to the list of criteria, and by modification of questions to make them easier understandable, among others.

The One Health Rapid Assessment (OHRA) was developed to address interconnected health challenges across humans, animals, plants, and the environment. This report details the creation and testing of the OHRA tool, which supports practitioners and investors by providing a flexible, user-friendly platform for assessing One Health outcomes of initiatives. Developed based on findings from a literature review and peer-reviewed testing, OHRA effectively reveals connections between health domains, aiding in monitoring, strategic planning, and project design. Furthermore it supports the user in adopting a broader perspective on health and facilitates the adoption of One Health principles. Key findings of the tool testing emphasize the need for clear indicators and user-friendly interfaces. Recommendations include enhanced visualizations, additional tutorials, and broader dissemination. OHRA is a significant step towards mainstreaming One Health principles and fostering cross-sectoral collaboration.