About

This website hosts the public documentation for the methods used to create the values and metrics reported to Fieldprint Platform users. The website is searchable and organized primarily by each sustainability indicator. Below is a summary of updates in the latest version of the Platform.

NoteSubmitting Feedback

Please contact science@fieldtomarket.org to submit feedback on the documentation or report errors.

Sustainability Indicators

The Fieldprint Platform aims to be a transparent, credible, and accessible tool for all agricultural stakeholders in evaluating the environmental impact associated with the production of twenty row crop commodities at the field level. The outcomes from individual fields can be aggregated to represent a farm or a supply shed (a group of farmer suppliers in a defined geography or market). Considering all 2024 planted acres1 of crops in Field to Market’s program, the Fieldprint Platform can be used to estimate the environmental impact of approximately 267 million acres (108 million hectares) of United States cropland, representing nearly 70% of all U.S. planted cropland2.

1 harvested acres for alfalfa

2 382 million acres

Field to Market’s program centers on eight sustainability indicators that estimate environmental impacts on individual farm fields. These indicators are built into our Fieldprint Platform® and have been carefully developed over the past decade with input from farmers, researchers, companies, and other partners. The Metrics Committee oversees these tools, with four elected members representing each of our five membership groups. The committee reviews each indicator every three to five years to make sure it stays current and useful. Input and guidance is also gathered from workshops, consultants, and science councils.

Changes in Methods 5.0

Updates in the Fieldprint Platform 5.0 Methods are summarized below by indicator or topic. Major revisions were conducted for the methods of the Energy Use, GHG Emissions, and Soil Carbon indicators.

Biodiversity

The structural score for the cultivated land module of the Habitat Potential Index in version 5.0 no longer accounts for land use change from surface waters (such as wetlands, lakes, ponds, rivers, or streams) to cultivated land. This is related to the limitations of the Direct Land Use Change method in the GHG Emissions section.

Energy Use and associated GHG Emissions

Methods for estimating Energy Use and associated GHG emissions were updated as follows:

Item Primary Sources
Irrigation operations Hoffman, Howell, and Solomon (1990); Eisenhauer et al. (2021)
Field operations Kucera and Coreil (2023)
Manure transportation ANL (2024); Bormann et al. (2024); Wilson et al. (2022)
Crop transportation BTS (2024); internal analysis
Crop drying Arinze et al. (1996); Blankenship and Chew (1979); Ford (2024); Panigrahi et al. (2023); Parker, Muller, and Buckmaster (1992); Savoie and Joannis (2006)

GHG Emissions

For methods related to all other field-level GHG emissions, the following list indicates whether a method is an addition or a revision for the FP v5, the source, and tier classification:

:
Method Primary Sources Tier Change
CH4 emissions from flooded rice cultivation Ogle et al. (2024) Tier 2 🔁Revision
Non-CO2 emissions from biomass burning Ogle et al. (2024) Tier 1 🔁Revision
Soil N2O Ogle et al. (2024) Tier 1 🔁Revision
CH4 flux from non-flooded soils Ogle et al. (2024) Tier 1 ➕Addition
CO2 from carbonate lime applications to soils Ogle et al. (2024) Tier 2 ➕Addition
CO2 from urea fertilizer applications Ogle et al. (2024) Tier 1 ➕Addition
Direct land use change IPCC (2019); ECEuropean Commission (2010) Tier 2 ➕Addition
Soil carbon stock changes SWAT+ model (Bieger et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2013) Tier 3 ➕Addition

Soil Carbon

The Soil Conditioning Index (Carlson et al. 2016) has been replaced with a process-based model. The SWAT+ model service quantifies soil carbon stock to a specified depth in the soil profile, the default set to 30 cm. The model simulates soil carbon stock, fluxes among carbon and nitrogen pools, and CO2 emissions by soil horizon, as well as carbon and nitrogen loss through runoff, lateral flow, and percolation through the soil profile.

The SWAT+ soil organic carbon module was based on the SWAT-C model (Zhang et al. 2013). SWAT-C incorporated terrestrial soil organic matter dynamics from the CENTURY and EPIC models and aquatic carbon cycling processes from QUAL2K and CE-QUAL-W2 (Du et al. 2019) into SWAT2012.

With the implementation of SWAT+, annual sequestered soil organic carbon stock changes can be expressed either as elemental carbon or carbon dioxide equivalents as follows:

\[ \Delta SOC = \Delta SOC_{microbial} + \Delta SOC_{slow} + \Delta SOC_{passive} \] Where:

  • \(\Delta SOC\) = Soil organic carbon (SOC) stock changes from consecutive years.
  • \(\Delta SOC_{microbial}\) = SOC stock changes from the mass of microorganisms within the soil.
  • \(\Delta SOC_{slow}\) = SOC stock changes from partially decomposed organic matter that breaks down over several years.
  • \(\Delta SOC_{passive}\) = SOC stock changes from passive humus that decomposes over centuries.

Indicators without method revisions from version 4.2

  • Land Use

  • Irrigation Water Use

  • Soil Conservation3

  • Water Quality

3 As with previous versions, users are invited to report any modeled soil erosion values that seem unusually high

Other Notes

Yield Inputs

  • Rice yield should be entered on a standard moisture basis4.
  • Alfalfa harvest moisture should be entered as moisture at baling, not at cutting.
  • Seed cotton yield can be estimated from lint yield entered by user.

4 standard moisture = 14%

Manure Inputs

  • Users can now enter an exact manure application rate (\(gal\ ac^{-1}\) or \(ton\ ac^{-1}\)).
  • Default manure content values (% solids, Total N, Total P2O5) are sourced from a custom backend table derived from manureDB (Bormann et al. 2024).
    • Support and collaboration could enable users to override the defaults with their own manure content values.

References

ANL. 2024. “Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Technologies Model (GREET).” Argonne National Laboratory. https://www.energy.gov/eere/rd-greet-life-cycle-assessment-model.
Arinze, E. A., S. Sokhansanj, G. J. Schoenau, and F. G. Trauttmansdorff. 1996. “Experimental Evaluation, Simulation and Optimization of a Commercial Heated-Air Batch Hay Drier: Part 1, Drier Functional Performance, Product Quality, and Economic Analysis of Drying.” Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 63 (4): 301–14. https://doi.org/10.1006/jaer.1996.0033.
Bieger, Katrin, Jeffrey G. Arnold, Hendrik Rathjens, Michael J. White, David D. Bosch, Peter M. Allen, Martin Volk, and Raghavan Srinivasan. 2017. “Introduction to SWAT+, a Completely Restructured Version of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool.” JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 53 (1): 115–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12482.
Blankenship, Paul D., and Victor Chew. 1979. “Peanut Drying Energy Consumption.” Peanut Science 6 (1): 10–13. https://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-6-1-3.
Bormann, Nancy Bohl, Erin Cortus, Melissa Wilson, Kevin Silverstein, Larry Gunderson, and Kevin Janni. 2024. “ManureDB-National Database of Manure Nutrient Content and Other Characteristics: 1998-2023.”
BTS. 2024. “Combination Truck Fuel Consumption and Travel.” https://www.bts.gov/content/combination-truck-fuel-consumption-and-travel.
Carlson, Jack, Larry Wagner, Olaf David, Wes Lloyd, Fred Fox, and Ken Rojas. 2016. “The Soil Conditioning Index Model Service.” https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1111&context=agroenviron.
Du, Xinzhong, Xuesong Zhang, Rajith Mukundan, Linh Hoang, and Emmet M Owens. 2019. “Integrating Terrestrial and Aquatic Processes Toward Watershed Scale Modeling of Dissolved Organic Carbon Fluxes.” Environmental Pollution 249: 125135.
ECEuropean Commission. 2010. “2010/335/: Commission Decision of 10 June 2010 on Guidelines for the Calculation of Land Carbon Stocks for the Purpose of Annex v to Directive 2009/28/EC (Notified Under Document c(2010) 3751).” https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2010/335/oj.
Eisenhauer, Dean E, Derrel L Martin, Derek M Heeren, and Glenn J Hoffman. 2021. Irrigation Systems Management. American Society of Agricultural; Biological Engineers (ASABE).
Ford, Vic. 2024. “Wheat Drying and Storage.” https://www.uaex.uada.edu/farm-ranch/crops-commercial-horticulture/Grain_drying_and_storage/wheat_drying_and_storage.aspx.
Hoffman, Glenn J, TA Howell, and Kenneth H Solomon. 1990. Management of Farm Irrigation Systems. Joseph, MI, USA: American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
IPCC. 2019. “2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.”
Kucera, Michael J., and Christopher B. Coreil. 2023. “Overview of USDA-NRCS Erosion Prediction Technology and Conservation Resources - Land Management Operations Database and Use.” Soil Erosion Research Under a Changing Climate, January 8-13, 2023, Aguadilla, Puerto Rico, USA. https://doi.org/10.13031/soil.23007.
Ogle, Stephen M, Paul R Adler, Gary Bentrup, Justin Derner, Grant Domke, Stephen Del Grosso, Johannes Lehmann, Michele Reba, and Dominic Woolf. 2024. “Chapter 3: Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Cropland and Grazing Land Systems.” In: Hanson, Wes L.; Itle, Cortney; Edquist, Kara, Eds. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Agriculture and Forestry: Methods for Entity-Scale Inventory. Technical Bulletin Number 1939, 2nd Edition. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist. 6-1-6-23. Chapter 3. 1939: 31.
Panigrahi, Shubham Subrot, Kaushik Luthra, Chandra B. Singh, Griffith Atungulu, and Kenny Corscadden. 2023. “On-Farm Grain Drying System Sustainability: Current Energy and Carbon Footprint Assessment with Potential Reform Measures.” Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 60 (December): 103430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2023.103430.
Parker, W. J., L. D. Muller, and D. R. Buckmaster. 1992. “Management and Economic Implications of Intensive Grazing on Dairy Farms in the Northeastern States1.” Journal of Dairy Science 75 (9): 2587–97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(92)78021-7.
Savoie, P, and H Joannis. 2006. “Bidirectional Drying of Baled Hay with Air Recirculation and Cooling.” Canadian Biosystems Engineering 48: 3. https://library.csbe-scgab.ca/docs/journal/48/c0614.pdf.
Wilson, Melissa L., Scott Cortus, Rachel Brimmer, Jerry Floren, Larry Gunderson, Kristin Hicks, Tim Hoerner, et al. 2022. Recommended Methods of Manure Analysis, Second Edition. University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. http://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/227650.
Zhang, Xuesong, R. César Izaurralde, Jeffrey G. Arnold, Jimmy R. Williams, and Raghavan Srinivasan. 2013. “Modifying the Soil and Water Assessment Tool to Simulate Cropland Carbon Flux: Model Development and Initial Evaluation.” Science of The Total Environment 463-464 (October): 810822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.06.056.