How Trazo's Records and Calculations Work

1. The Records Model: One Entry, Two Outputs

Trazo's unit of work is the activity record: a dated, parcel-linked entry — an input application, a harvest, an irrigation set, a cleanout — whose structured fields follow what 7 CFR 205.103 recordkeeping asks an organic operation to retain: what was done, where, when, with what, by whom. Input applications record product, rate, area treated, and applicator; harvests record quantity, how the amount was determined, destination, and buffer-row disposition; equipment shared with conventional ground links to its cleanout log. A field left blank is listed as missing, never filled in.

The same records then serve two audiences without re-entry. For the certifier: records feed Organic System Plan modules that follow the Common OSP structure (§ 205.201(a)), per-parcel applications (§ 205.202), an audit PDF with inline Part 205 citations, and a renewal packet. Where Trazo can derive a suggested answer from the season's records, it presents the suggestion with its evidence named — the operator confirms or edits every answer, because the operator authors the plan. For the buyer: the same records produce a scannable product page showing documented practices, photos, and third-party certifications — facts, never a self-assigned grade.

A design consequence worth stating: because Trazo measures documentation completeness rather than rating environmental impact, a farm is never penalized for logging more. More records mean a more complete file — for the inspector, and for the buyer.

2. What Trazo Checks, and What It Does Not

Trazo checks a few things against public data and states the limit of each check beside it:

• USDA Organic certification check: organic certification claims are cross-referenced against the USDA Organic Integrity Database (36,000+ operations). A certification reads "Verified via USDA Organic Integrity Database" only when the database entry is confirmed for the farm: its certificate or operation number matches, or a single entry in its state carries exactly its name. A similar name alone is shown as a possible match and the certification stays "Self-Reported". Either way this is a database cross-reference, not an inspection. OMRI, WSDA and National List lookups describe materials and never verify a farm.
• Regional irrigation defaults: Irrigation depth defaults are adjusted by state (e.g., 2.5" for Arizona vs. 1.0" for humid eastern states) to prevent underestimation in arid regions.

3. Photos on Records

A record shows whether a photo is attached. Trazo does not grade records by their photos and does not confirm what a photo shows; photos are the farm's own evidence, for the certifier to weigh. The activity form suggests a photo where an inspector usually asks for one:

4. Carbon Calculation Methodology

Trazo estimates the operation's own emissions plus the manufacturing of the fertilizer and chemicals it buys. The second half happens off the farm, before purchase, and is counted because the farmer chooses the input and the rate. This is not a full Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): fertilizer transport, equipment manufacturing, infrastructure, distribution, retail and end-of-life are excluded.

Calculation Examples

Method-Aware Accuracy for Manual Labor

USDA per-hectare fuel factors (Section 6) assume mechanical equipment. When a farmer documents a manual method (for example, "Hand thinning with pruning shears"), applying a mechanical fuel average would overstate emissions by 10–100x.

Trazo detects manual operations from the farmer's free-text method field and routes to a manual labor estimate (0.1 kg CO₂e per acre), representing hand-tool wear and worker logistics. Mechanical keywords (tractor, harvester, sprayer) take precedence on ambiguous descriptions.

This ensures that farmers who document more receive more accurate carbon values, not blanket averages. When a farmer explicitly reports zero fuel consumption, the calculator respects that value rather than falling back to USDA estimates.

5. Emission Factor Sources

Each factor states its own source, and the sources are not all of one kind: fuel and electricity come from EPA publications, nitrogen combines EPA and IPCC guideline values, crop-protection manufacturing comes from peer-reviewed LCA literature, and the phosphorus (P₂O₅) and potassium (K₂O) figures are Trazo estimates, not agency or published values. Each factor includes a confidence level (0.0–1.0) representing source evidence strength.

Fuel Combustion (EPA 40 CFR Part 98)

Electricity (EPA eGRID 2023)

US Average: 0.365 kg CO₂e/kWh delivered. The eGRID2023 Summary Tables publish 770.9 lb CO₂e/MWh at the generator and a 4.2% U.S. grid gross loss; converting that to kilograms per kilowatt-hour gives 0.350, and dividing by 0.958 to account for what is lost in transmission gives 0.365. Country-specific factors are used where we have the grid operator's own published intensity: Uruguay (0.006), Brazil (0.07), Colombia (0.13), Peru (0.19), Chile (0.31), Argentina (0.35), and Mexico (0.42).

Correction note (2025-12-03): corrected from 0.821 to 0.39 kg CO₂/kWh after the previous value was found to be 2.1x too high due to a unit conversion error. Correction note (2026-09-07): corrected again, from 0.39 to 0.365 kg CO₂e/kWh. 0.39 was EPA's Equivalencies Calculator figure, which uses eGRID2022 data and a 5.12% loss rate; this page cites eGRID2023, whose published U.S. rate and 4.2% grid gross loss give 0.365.

Fertilizer Manufacturing

Note (2026-09-07): the phosphorus and potassium factors were previously attributed on this page to EPA 40 CFR Part 98. That publication carries no fertilizer manufacturing factors, so the attribution was withdrawn. These two are Trazo estimates, not agency figures, and they are deliberately set at the conservative end: published work puts phosphorus production at 1.0–1.5 kg CO₂e per kg P₂O₅ (Walling & Vaneeckhaute 2020), and European figures for both run lower still (Brentrup et al. 2018). We would rather overstate our own footprint than understate it. The nitrogen and fuel factors are unaffected and remain agency-published.

Chemical Manufacturing

Additional chemical-specific factors are available for copper fungicide (5.5), sulfur fungicide (1.8), biological fungicide (2.0), organic herbicide (1.2), and glyphosate (31.3 kg CO₂/kg AI). The full emission factor table with confidence levels and detailed source citations is available in the complete methodology document.

Equipment Operations (USDA ARS)

Per-hectare fuel factors for mechanical operations. When a farmer documents manual methods, the manual labor factor (0.1 kg CO₂e/acre) is used instead (see Section 5).

6. NOP Audit PDF Methodology

For organic operations, Trazo generates a 24-page Audit PDF designed to support certifier review under the USDA National Organic Program (7 CFR Part 205). The PDF is reference material farmers attach to their certifier's annual inspection package. Trazo is a documentation platform and is not a USDA-accredited certifier; the PDF does not constitute certification or any determination of compliance.

7.1 Document Structure

Each export is filtered by certification type (organic, GLOBALG.A.P., Regenerative Organic, or all). The organic-typed PDF contains the following sections, in order:

• Page-1 Documentation Snapshot: 13+ row table citing 7 CFR § 205.201 (OSP), § 205.201(a)(2) (OSP narrative vs. registry sync), § 205.103 (records), § 205.103(b)(2) (SOE traceability), § 205.202 (land requirements), § 205.203(c) (compost / raw manure), § 205.206 (pest management), § 205.272 (contamination prevention), § 205.307 (lot traceability), § 205.400(f)(2) (unapproved-input drift findings), and § 205.201(a)(3) (OFPP). Each row states whether the record that section asks for is present in what the farmer entered, is missing, or needs the certifier's review. It is a documentation check, not a compliance finding.
• Producer Attestation (§ 205.401(d)): the statement the operator signs. When no signature is recorded in Trazo, the PDF prints it as not signed.
• Organic System Plan reference: active OSP version, status, and § 205.201 narrative.
• Inputs list in the plan: the OMRI-listed and National List materials the operation's plan names. A material on the list is in the plan; approval is the certifier's.
• Inputs not matched to the plan: inputs recorded that match nothing on the plan's inputs list, with the reason, for review with the certifier (a change to the plan is notified under § 205.400(f)(2)).
• Field Events: chemical applications, soil management, pest management, equipment cleaning, weather, and general documentation, each with timestamps, GPS, and CFR-paired column headers.
• Compost & Manure Handling: compost temperature curves vs. § 205.203(c)(2) (windrow or static pile); raw manure 90-day or 120-day pre-harvest interval per § 205.203(c)(1).
• Pest IPM Threshold Monitoring: scouting observations, action thresholds, and rationale per § 205.206(a) and (e).
• Photo Gallery: embedded thumbnails in NOP-priority order (pest, soil/compost, chemical, equipment cleaning, contamination, then routine production), with EXIF date/GPS captions. Capped at 4 photos per event and 60 total.
• SOE Compliance Status: attestations per the 2024 Strengthening Organic Enforcement final rule: Fraud Prevention Plan (§ 205.201(a)(3)), 5-Year Retention (§ 205.103(b)(4)), Unannounced Inspection Readiness (§ 205.661), Non-Retail Container Labeling (§ 205.307), and NOP Import Certificate. Each attestation reports actual platform state, never a false claim.
• Record Change History: every edit logged with user attribution and timestamp; flagged when changes occur after production finalization.

7.2 Drift Detector Logic

When a farmer logs a chemical or soil amendment event, a post-save signal compares the input against the materials list on the operation's plan (the active plan, or the newest draft, in which case the finding is marked provisional). It works in three steps:

1. Catalog reference: if the event references a specific OMRI product or National List substance by ID, the detector checks that the ID is on the plan's list.
2. Exact name match: otherwise, a commercial name counts only when it matches exactly, ignoring case and extra spaces, either an entry in the OMRI, WSDA or National List catalogs that is on the plan's list, or a material the operator entered on the plan's own materials list. For the National List, a hand-checked alias table also counts (for example "Sulfur" for the listed "Elemental sulfur"); a term that could mean more than one listing is never resolved automatically. A partial match on a word or a brand name is shown as a possible match, not confirmed, and decides nothing. A name match is a lookup aid, never a verification.
3. Unresolved → listed for review: events that match nothing on the plan's list are listed for review with the certifier. The detector never blocks a save, because the record has to say what was actually applied. Recording an input never authorizes using it. Applying a prohibited substance, including by drift, is something the operation must notify its certifier about immediately (§ 205.400(f)(1)); that duty to notify is not permission to use it.

Exact matching misses a name spelled differently from the catalog; that input shows as unresolved. Treat these findings as a list to review before sharing the PDF with a certifier.

7.3 What the PDF Does Not Do

• It does not certify. Only USDA-accredited certifying agents (CCOF, Oregon Tilth, MOFGA, OEFFA, PCO, and others) issue organic certificates. The PDF is reference material, not a certification.
• It does not verify. Trazo does not visit farms, sample soil, audit supplier invoices, or independently validate that documented practices actually occurred.
• It does not guarantee outcomes. A farmer whose snapshot lists nothing missing may still receive a non-compliance finding from their certifier.
• It is compliance-assisting, not compliance-granting. The intended use is to make inspector pre-read faster, not to replace inspector judgement.

7.4 Tamper-Evidence Footer

Each photo in the gallery includes a footer listing the original S3 object key, upload timestamp, file size, and uploader account, metadata retained in the producer dashboard for cross- reference. The PDF does not currently include a SHA-256 hash on the file itself; that capability may be added in a future release.

7. Known Limitations

Transparency about limitations is fundamental to this methodology's credibility.

• Self-reported data: Every practice record is farmer-reported. There is no independent verification of event accuracy. The consumer-facing disclaimer reads: "Based on farmer-reported documentation. Not independently audited."
• Documentation completeness, not quality: These counts measure how many events were documented, not whether the documented practices are good or sustainable.
• Photos: a record shows whether a photo is attached. Trazo does not check what a photo shows or that it was taken on the farm on the day recorded.
• Carbon scope: Carbon calculations cover the operation's own emissions plus the manufacturing of the fertilizer and chemicals it buys. That is mostly Scope 1, with that one Scope 3 category included because it is the largest number a grower can actually change. It is deliberately narrower than a full Life Cycle Assessment per ISO 14067: transport to the farm, packaging, equipment manufacturing, distribution and retail are all excluded.
• Emission factor age: Some factors derive from studies published in 2004–2009. While these remain the most widely-cited sources in agricultural carbon literature, annual review against newer publications is planned.
• EU regulatory status: Under the EU Directive 2024/825 (effective September 2026), a self-assigned grade or rating shown to consumers could be classified as a self-created sustainability label. Trazo therefore assigns no grade or rating of any kind: there is no number to publish or withhold. Consumers see the documented practices and third-party certifications directly. Carbon is shown to buyers only as a collapsed, labelled estimate with its boundary stated, never as a grade or a headline number. Full EU substantiation may still require external methodology audit.

8. Regulatory Context

This methodology was developed with reference to the following standards and regulations. Trazo has not undergone formal conformity assessment against these standards.

• FTC Green Guides (16 CFR Part 260): No implied third-party endorsement. Each emission factor names its own source: a government publication, peer-reviewed literature, or, for P₂O₅ and K₂O, a Trazo estimate (section 5). Blockchain described as "blockchain-recorded" (immutability), never "blockchain-verified."
• ISO 14021:2016 (Self-Declared Environmental Claims): Claims are specific, substantiated, and verifiable. Methodology published openly.
• ISO 22005:2007 (Food Traceability): Production event tracking follows traceability design principles: each event records who, what, when, where, and how.
• ISO 14067:2018 (Carbon Footprint of Products): Carbon calculations reference ISO 14067 principles for emission factor selection, though Trazo's scope (the operation's own emissions plus the manufacturing of the fertilizer and chemicals it buys) is narrower than a full product carbon footprint.

9. References

Government Data Sources

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors Hub (40 CFR Part 98). epa.gov
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. eGRID2023 Summary Data. epa.gov/egrid
3. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2023). How much carbon dioxide is produced per kilowatthour of U.S. electricity generation? eia.gov
4. IPCC. (2006/2019). Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. N₂O emission factors (EF1=1%, GWP=265). ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp
5. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. National Engineering Handbook, Chapter 8: Irrigation. nrcs.usda.gov
6. USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. USDA Organic Integrity Database. organic.ams.usda.gov

Peer-Reviewed Literature

6. Audsley, E. et al. (2009). Estimation of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural Pesticide Manufacture and Use. Cranfield University.
7. Hillier, J. et al. (2009). The carbon footprints of food crop production. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 7(2), 107–118.
8. Lal, R. (2004). Carbon emission from farm operations. Environment International, 30(7), 981–990.