FAQ

While Field to Market does not provide data entry assistance, we do support Fieldprint Project Administrators and Implementation Partners as they work with individual growers. We offer Platform training sessions for Field to Market members, provide demos of the Platform for organizations looking to join Field to Market and maintain a support website that helps walk growers through the data entry process. Please see data entry support in User Support section of this website.

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.

The Fieldprint Platform does not have field size restrictions. However, we do want to note that the Energy Use and GHG Emission metrics might produce unexpected results when a field is under 1 hectare or 2.5 acres in size.

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.

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.

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:

• Irrigation operations
• Field operations
• Manure transportation
• Crop transportation
• Crop drying
• CH4 emissions from flooded rice cultivation
• Non-CO2 emissions from biomass burning
• Soil N2O

The following methodologies were added in Version 5: 

• CH4 flux from non-flooded soils
• CO2 from carbonate lime applications to soils
• CO2 from urea fertilizer applications
• Direct land use change
• Soil carbon stock changes

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:

• Irrigation operations: Irrigation pumps powered by diesel can expect a doubling or tripling of GHG emissions associated with water pumping.
• Soil N2O: The latest method from USDA estimates higher soil N2O emissions compared to the method from Version 4.
• Soil organic carbon fluxes: This method is an addition and may result in GHG emissions or sequestrations.
• Direct land use change: If a given field experienced land use change (e.g., pine forest to row crops), a significant amount of GHG emissions are added for the next 20 years.

The manure rate and content are highly important data points to collect. You can learn more about the manure inputs on this documentation webpage.

The soil phosphorus concentration measured in a soil test can be interpreted as a qualitative level (Low, Medium, High/ Optimum, Very High/Excessive, etc). The interpretation comes from a state’s nutrient management recommendations which are based on factors like region, crop, and soil type. The level is often included on soil test reports.

If you have more than one soil sample collected for your field, please use the dominant soil phosphorus test level for the field in the drop-down selection. For example, if a grower has 100 acres and 60 acres of the field tested low for phosphorus, please select low for the drop-down.

The section pictured below impacts the Water Quality Indicator. You can read more about the indicator on our Metrics Documentation Website.

As of now, the platform requires the user to enter two separate application trips for this process. We are looking into a way to indicate the activities were done in one trip. For now, we have established an alternative that does not significantly contribute to an increase in the energy use score.

Complete the fertilizer activity information needed. Add a spraying operation activity on the same date as the fertilizer application activity. Set the fuel usage for the spraying operation activity to 0.

This alternative can also be used if there is a planting pass with starter fertilizer, a tillage pass with a fertilizer application, or a cover crop planting with a fertilizer application. In these cases, the fertilizer application fuel amount would be set to 0.