Strategic tillage in no-till farming systems in Australia's northern grains-growing regions: I. Drivers and implementation

Development of no-tillage (NT) farming has revolutionized agricultural systems by allowing growers to manage greater areas of land with reduced energy, labour and machinery inputs to control erosion, improve soil health and reduce greenhouse gas emission. However, NT farming systems have resulted in a build-up of herbicide-resistant weeds, an increased incidence of soil- and stubble-borne diseases and enrichment of nutrients and carbon near the soil surface. Consequently, there is an increased interest in the use of an occasional tillage (termed strategic tillage, ST) to address such emerging constraints in otherwise-NT farming systems. Decisions around ST uses will depend upon the specific issues present on the individual field or farm, and profitability and effectiveness of available options for management. This paper explores some of the issues with the implementation of ST in NT farming systems. The impact of contrasting soil properties, the timing of the tillage and the prevailing climate exert a strong influence on the success of ST. Decisions around timing of tillage are very complex and depend on the interactions between soil water content and the purpose for which the ST is intended. The soil needs to be at the right water content before executing any tillage, while the objective of the ST will influence the frequency and type of tillage implement used. The use of ST in long-term NT systems will depend on factors associated with system costs and profitability, soil health and environmental impacts. For many farmers maintaining farm profitability is a priority, so economic considerations are likely to be a primary factor dictating adoption. However, impacts on soil health and environment, especially the risk of erosion and the loss of soil carbon, will also influence a grower's choice to adopt ST, as will the impact on soil moisture reserves in rainfed cropping systems. © 2015 Elsevier B.V.

Carbon losses in terrestrial hydrological pathways in sugarcane cropping systems of Australia

Climate change and carbon (C) sequestration are a major focus of research in the twenty-first century. Globally, soils store about 300 times the amount of C that is released per annum through the burning of fossil fuels (Schulze and Freibauer 2005). Land clearing and introduction of agricultural systems have led to rapid declines in soil C reserves. The recent introduction of conservation agricultural practices has not led to a reversing of the decline in soil C content, although it has minimized the rate of decline (Baker et al. 2007; Hulugalle and Scott 2008). Lal (2003) estimated the quantum of C pools in the atmosphere, terrestrial ecosystems, and oceans and reported a “missing C” component in the world C budget. Though not proven yet, this could be linked to C losses through runoff and soil erosion (Lal 2005) and a lack of C accounting in inland water bodies (Cole et al. 2007). Land management practices to minimize the microbial respiration and soil organic C (SOC) decline such as minimum tillage or no tillage were extensively studied in the past, and the soil erosion and runoff studies monitoring those management systems focused on other nutrients such as nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P).

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.