Empowering the Agricultural Supply Chain
The Platform measures the impact of farm management practices on 8 sustainability metrics: Biodiversity, Energy Use, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Irrigation Water Use, Land Use, Soil Carbon, Soil Conservation and Water Quality. To learn more about how these metrics are calculated, please visit our Metrics Documentation.
The following models are used as the backbone for the Fieldprint Platform’s eight sustainability indicators:
For mor information on how these models work and impact our eight sustainability indicators, please see our metrics documentation website.
All eight indicators are calculated simultaneously. The Platform cannot calculate one indicator separately because much of the data a user enters is used for multiple calculations. For example, to determine Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy Use must first be calculated. In irrigated fields, irrigation water use affects the amount of energy consumed, which then affects the amount of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide emitted as a result.
See Table 4, Fieldprint Platform v5 Sources, using this documentation webpage. The soil carbon stock changes component is a positive value (sources) when emissions are estimated, and a negative value (sinks) when the model estimates carbon sequestration. N2O emissions are not a sink; the model always estimates some N2O emissions. N2O emissions are highly influenced by applications of synthetic fertilizer and manure, and by crop residue amounts after crop harvest. N2O emissions are attributed to the crop that received the nutrient applications.
Project benchmarks are only available to be used by Fieldprint Projects. A Project Benchmark is the average Fieldprint metric value for all fields within a specific project that share the same scope (such as crop type or irrigation). These benchmarks are more meaningful to growers because they reflect results from others in the same region and project. They are calculated as weighted averages of field-level data, which can be area weighted, or production weighted.
National and state benchmarks take publicly available data from USDA for crop production information related to inputs (nutrients, pesticides), outputs (yield), and we create a production profile based on irrigation type (irrigated, non-irrigated). We average five years of data (2008-2012, inclusive) and estimate the metrics using weighted averages at the national and state level.
SWAT+ can simulate processes such as soil carbon dynamics, surface runoff, infiltration, evapotranspiration, groundwater flow, sediment transport, and nutrient cycling. When coupled with additional calibration and validation against observed data, it aligns with the IPCC’s definition of a Tier 3 methodology. Tier 3 models are characterized by their comprehensive approaches, disaggregation of activity data, and the use of the latest scientific knowledge to provide granular estimates of variables of interest such as greenhouse gas emissions and removals.
By the end of 2025, Fieldprint Platform V5 will incorporate the SWAT+ model, which Colorado State University will validate to simulate soil organic carbon (SOC) dynamics in the U.S. Corn Belt. This model validation effort focuses on cropping systems that include corn, soybeans, and wheat, among other crops, which collectively comprise 92% of the Field to Market’s project acres. The SWAT+ model implementation by CSU will provide a calibrated model service with localized weather, soil properties, and crop growth modules. Modeling of SOC dynamics for other crops and/or regions outside the Midwest will rely on parameters from the USDA ARS National Agroecosystems Model, built-in parameters, and parameters from the scientific literature. Model uncertainty quantification will be provided for crops and regions with sufficient data.
The model output from SWAT+ should be considered sufficient for Scope 3 reporting.
Generation of carbon credits by SWAT+ is not currently supported.
The GHG Protocol does not have a mechanism to formally approve tools or models in the sense of a certification, recognition, or endorsement program. However, guidance from the GHG Protocol played a significant role in the development of the Fieldprint Platform Version 5. At a later date, Field to Market will release a report describing how output from SWAT+ can be used to align with GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Guidance. For additional context, the “Built on GHG Protocol” recognition was officially closed on August 13, 2024.
This is a planned feature. There are two short notes in the Soil Carbon documentation about this:
The Fieldprint Platform uses an inventory approach rather than an intervention approach to account for GHG emissions and soil carbon impacts. It is important to note that Fieldprint API data partners can eventually develop intervention approaches with the Fieldprint Platform by creating counterfactual scenarios.
Fieldprint Platform Version 5 represents a significant upgrade from Version 4, with the revision of three indicators at its center: Energy Use, GHG Emissions, and Soil Carbon.
The following methodologies were revised in Version 5:
The following methodologies were added in Version 5:
Any of the above revisions or additions could have impacted your indicator scores. From our internal preliminary analyses, the methodologies with the highest potential to impact your results include:
SAI Platform distinguishes two benchmarking outcomes. “Aligned” means the scheme’s content matches what FSA covers, but additional verification is required before any FSA claims can be attached to a product. “Equivalent” means verification is already part of the scheme and meets FSA’s minimum requirements, so FSA claims can be attached directly. The Fieldprint® Platform itself is aligned to FSA Gold Level. Completing the Equivalency Module and going through the verification process is what moves growers from alignment to verified FSA status.