compound and straight delivered to the farm gate. This data will then be inputted into the business’ Precision Nutrition Rationing Programme so farmers can understand the carbon footprint of their whole diet, including home grown forages. Mole Valley Feed Solutions’


NUQO APPOINTS BARENTZ AS STRATEGIC DISTRIBUTION


PARTNER NUQO has appointed Barentz Animal Nutrition as the preferred distribution partner for their range of feed additives in the Benelux and several surrounding countries. The new partnership with Barentz is driven by NUQO’s strategic plan to implement the best high-performance distribution network and to further expand its activities in Europe and globally. The NUQO product range consists of


several products that combine phyto- and phycogenic compounds that are encapsulated to provide maximum efficacy, depending on each species different requirements. The products focus on an improvement in animal performance due to their gut health improving and immune system stimulating effects. The different products have been proven effective in several in-vivo and commercial trials. “NUQO’s technologies are gaining


traction in Europe, but also in other regions of the globe. Now, the addition of Barentz as a partner in specific European markets will help to reach more producers,” said Ewenn Helary, CEO of NUQO. “Besides that, we hope to strengthen our collaboration to co- development and research even better solutions in the future, and Barentz is giving us valuable insights to do just that.” According to Tim Lemeer, Vice President


at Barentz Animal Nutrition: “Transparency is key in partnerships. NUQO gives insight in the used bioactive ingredients and technology to ensure that our customers’ R&D managers and nutritionists have the best tools at their disposal to formulate effective feed solutions that increase performance and animal well- being. We strongly believe in this approach of full transparency and it shows the good fit between our companies on values, our capabilities and our expertise. We are very enthusiastic in bringing this new partnership to its full potential.”


MOLE VALLEY FARMERS LEADS WAY IN UNDERSTANDING CARBON FOOTPRINT OF


RATIONS Mole Valley Farmers is helping producers to reduce the environmental impact of their rations by calculating the carbon footprint of every feed ingredient delivered to their mills. Every feed handled by the British farmer owned cooperative now has a “Product Environment Footprint” up to its arrival at the feed mill. They are also on track to provide carbon footprint information for every blend,


PAGE 52 MARCH/APRIL 2021 FEED COMPOUNDER


Nutritionist, Dr Matt Witt says it’s about helping farmers get on the front foot when it comes to environmental sustainability and biodiversity. This is vital considering they will be rewarded for environmental improvements as part of the Government’s phasing out of direct payments. Matt says: “Farmers will need to show


they are taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint as part of the new Sustainable Farming Incentive. With feed responsible for 46% of greenhouse gas emissions from dairy farming it is one area where farmers can make a big difference. As a business, we’ve always been conscious of the need for environmentally sustainable products. That’s why we developed our no soya and no palm products a number of years ago and recently introduced our Great British Feeds range. The need to understand the environmental impact of feed ingredients is quite rightly getting stronger and is a growing requirement from farmers and processors.” With that in mind, Mole Valley Farmers


has invested in the latest information from the GFLI (Global Feed LCA Institute) database and worked closely with The University of Nottingham. Mole Valley Farmers’ Feed Formulator,


Hannah Banfield has been collating the numbers. She says: “This data has been used to produce a carbon footprint figure in grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilo gram (grams of CO2e/kg) for every feed material delivered to our four mills.” The aim is to work out the carbon


footprint of all compounds and blends delivered to an individual farm from a specific mill. In the meantime, Matt says the individual carbon footprint data for each feed gives a useful indication of where environmentally friendly changes might be made.


For example, soya has a carbon footprint


of 4,325 grams of CO2e/kg. However, this could be swapped for other protein sources including rapemeal - which has a carbon footprint of 1,280 grams of CO2e/kg - and maize distillers at 1,547 grams of CO2e/ kg. However, differences in nutritional value mean that formulations and rations will need to be adjusted carefully looking at nutrition, cost and carbon footprint. Matt stresses that the work is in its early


stages, but will offer workable and accurate solutions for farmers. “We’re determined and believe it is our responsibility to help reduce the carbon footprint of rations. By getting a better understanding of what the current carbon footprint of feeds look like we can start to put in place steps to help farmers lower the environmental impact of their businesses.”


FEFAC RELEASES THE SOY


SOURCING GUIDELINES 2021 On 3 February FEFAC released the Soy Sourcing Guidelines 2021. They are an upgraded version of the original Guidelines, released in 2015. In line with the FEFAC Feed Sustainability Charter 2030 ambitions for continuous improvement on responsible soy sourcing, the upgraded Guidelines cover a range of additional essential and new desired criteria. The upgraded Guidelines provide a credible verifiable source of information to soy value chain partners and other stakeholders on available market solutions for responsibly produced soy destined to European feed market. The FEFAC Soy Sourcing Guidelines


lay down a set of criteria and verification requirements enabling interested responsible soy schemes and programmes to enter an independent benchmark process facilitated and performed by ITC (International Trade Centre). The Guidelines are not designed as a standard or a professional soy sourcing recommendation. 19 responsible programmes successfully passed the benchmarking exercise (executed by ITC) against the Soy Sourcing Guidelines from 2015. Based on data collection from members, FEFAC estimate that almost half of the total European feed industry soy usage is responsibly produced. A new innovative feature of the FEFAC


Soy Sourcing Guidelines 2021 is the possibility for responsible soy schemes to voluntarily benchmark themselves, against a new desired criterion, on their capacity to deliver ‘conversion-free soy’ providing credible and verifiable assurances that the respective soy cultivation did not drive conversion of natural eco-systems. The schemes that deliver this ‘conversion- free soy’ will be displayed on the FEFAC webpage on ITC Sustainability Map via a transparency tool, making transparent the respective applicable cut-off date and chain of custody options. FEFAC currently expects that the new round of benchmarking of interested responsible soy programmes can start in Spring 2021 with initial results available to soy chain partners as from May 2021.


FEFAC President Asbjørn Børsting: “I


am confident that today FEFAC has been able to make a significant contribution to further increase market transparency for responsible soy sourcing. This now includes the possibility for interested programmes to benchmark against the new conversion-free criterion, within the limits of its pre-competitive mandate. I expect that the new version of the FEFAC Soy Sourcing Guidelines 2021 will remain a key tool for operators and chain partners of the European soy value chain assisting their combined efforts for the mainstream market transition towards sustainable soy sourcing, despite the very challenging market environment”.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76