Climate Clever Beef: options to improve business performance and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in northern Australia

The Rangeland Journal – Climate Clever Beef special issue examines options for the beef industry in northern Australia to contribute to the reduction in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to engage in the carbon economy. Relative to its gross value (A$5 billion), the northern beef industry is responsible for a sizable proportion of national reportable GHG emissions (8–10%) through enteric methane, savanna burning, vegetation clearing and land degradation. The industry occupies large areas of land and has the potential to impact the carbon cycle by sequestering carbon or reducing carbon loss. Furthermore, much of the industry is currently not achieving its productivity potential, which suggests that there are opportunities to improve the emissions intensity of beef production. Improving the industry’s GHG emissions performance is important for its environmental reputation and may benefit individual businesses through improved production efficiency and revenue from the carbon economy. The Climate Clever Beef initiative collaborated with beef businesses in six regions across northern Australia to better understand the links between GHG emissions and carbon stocks, land condition, herd productivity and profitability. The current performance of businesses was measured and alternate management options were identified and evaluated. Opportunities to participate in the carbon economy through the Australian Government’s Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) were also assessed. The initiative achieved significant producer engagement and collaboration resulting in practice change by 78 people from 35 businesses, managing more than 1 272 000 ha and 132 000 cattle. Carbon farming opportunities were identified that could improve both business performance and emissions intensity. However, these opportunities were not without significant risks, trade-offs and limitations particularly in relation to business scale, and uncertainty in carbon price and the response of soil and vegetation carbon sequestration to management. This paper discusses opportunities for reducing emissions, improving emission intensity and carbon sequestration, and outlines the approach taken to achieve beef business engagement and practice change. The paper concludes with some considerations for policy makers.

Bioeconomic modelling of woody regrowth carbon offset options in productive grazing systems

Agricultural land has been identified as a potential source of greenhouse gas emissions offsets through biosequestration in vegetation and soil. In the extensive grazing land of Australia, landholders may participate in the Australian Government’s Emissions Reduction Fund and create offsets by reducing woody vegetation clearing and allowing native woody plant regrowth to grow. This study used bioeconomic modelling to evaluate the trade-offs between an existing central Queensland grazing operation, which has been using repeated tree clearing to maintain pasture growth, and an alternative carbon and grazing enterprise in which tree clearing is reduced and the additional carbon sequestered in trees is sold. The results showed that ceasing clearing in favour of producing offsets produces a higher net present value over 20 years than the existing cattle enterprise at carbon prices, which are close to current (2015) market levels (~$13 t–1 CO2-e). However, by modifying key variables, relative profitability did change. Sensitivity analysis evaluated key variables, which determine the relative profitability of carbon and cattle. In order of importance these were: the carbon price, the gross margin of cattle production, the severity of the tree–grass relationship, the area of regrowth retained, the age of regrowth at the start of the project, and to a lesser extent the cost of carbon project administration, compliance and monitoring. Based on the analysis, retaining regrowth to generate carbon income may be worthwhile for cattle producers in Australia, but careful consideration needs to be given to the opportunity cost of reduced cattle income.