Table 4 Advantages and disadvantages of common performance metrics Metric Advantages Disadvantages GHG flux per Useful to entities that define Fails to consider efficiency of unit land area policies or that manage large farm production (e.g., flux / amounts of land (e.g., ha) government agencies) Reflective of the overall level of GHG fluxes on farms GHG flux per Better allows for comparisons Calculation may be complicated unit product within the same industry by the variety of products that (e.g., flux / Better able to represent the come from farms and the tonne beef) effects of mitigation measures different allocation methods used that have a relatively small to assign GHG fluxes (see GHG impact, but that below) nonetheless improve Does not consider product value productivity Does not reflect the overall Performance data are climate impact of farms (which frequently sought by buyers on would vary depending on the a per-product volume of products produced) GHG flux per Provides an understanding of Calculation may be complicated unit of farm the effects of feed type and by the need to allocate GHG input (e.g., amount on animal systems, or fluxes flux / MJ of the efficiency of nutrient use metabolisable in cropping systems energy intake) GHG flux per Considers a fundamental Calculation may be complicated unit of objective of most agricultural by the need to allocate GHG quality production to provide food fluxes – content in energy final product (e.g., per unit of fat, protein or metabolisable energy content)
Table 4 Advantages and disadvantages of common performance metrics Metric Advantages Disadvantages GHG flux per unit land area (e.g., flux / ha) Useful to entities that define policies or that manage large amounts of land (e.g., government agencies) Reflective of the overall level of GHG fluxes on farms Fails to consider efficiency of farm production GHG flux per unit product (e.g., flux / tonne beef) Better allows for comparisons within the same industry Better able to represent the effects of mitigation measures that have a relatively small GHG impact, but that nonetheless improve productivity Performance data are frequently sought by buyers on a per-product Calculation may be complicated by the variety of products that come from farms and the different allocation methods used to assign GHG fluxes (see below) Does not consider product value Does not reflect the overall climate impact of farms (which would vary depending on the volume of products produced) GHG flux per unit of farm input (e.g., flux / MJ metabolisable energy intake) Provides an understanding of the effects of feed type and amount on animal systems, or of the efficiency of nutrient use in cropping systems Calculation may be complicated by the need to allocate GHG fluxes GHG flux per unit of quality content in final product (e.g., per unit of fat, protein or metabolisable energy content) Considers a fundamental objective of most agricultural production – to provide food energy Calculation may be complicated by the need to allocate GHG fluxes
Ag%20Protocol_Final_0.docx