Scenario analysis of alternative vegetation management options on the greenhouse gas budget of two grazing businesses in north-eastern Australia

The emerging carbon economy will have a major impact on grazing businesses because of significant livestock methane and land-use change emissions. Livestock methane emissions alone account for similar to 11% of Australia's reported greenhouse gas emissions. Grazing businesses need to develop an understanding of their greenhouse gas impact and be able to assess the impact of alternative management options. This paper attempts to generate a greenhouse gas budget for two scenarios using a spread sheet model. The first scenario was based on one land-type '20-year-old brigalow regrowth' in the brigalow bioregion of southern-central Queensland. The 50 year analysis demonstrated the substantially different greenhouse gas outcomes and livestock carrying capacity for three alternative regrowth management options: retain regrowth (sequester 71.5 t carbon dioxide equivalents per hectare, CO2-e/ha), clear all regrowth (emit 42.8 t CO2-e/ha) and clear regrowth strips (emit 5.8 t CO2-e/ha). The second scenario was based on a 'remnant eucalypt savanna-woodland' land type in the Einasleigh Uplands bioregion of north Queensland. The four alternative vegetation management options were: retain current woodland structure (emit 7.4 t CO2-e/ha), allow woodland to thicken increasing tree basal area (sequester 20.7 t CO2-e/ha), thin trees less than 10 cm diameter (emit 8.9 t CO2-e/ha), and thin trees <20 cm diameter (emit 12.4 t CO2-e/ha). Significant assumptions were required to complete the budgets due to gaps in current knowledge on the response of woody vegetation, soil carbon and non-CO2 soil emissions to management options and land-type at the property scale. The analyses indicate that there is scope for grazing businesses to choose alternative management options to influence their greenhouse gas budget. However, a key assumption is that accumulation of carbon or avoidance of emissions somewhere on a grazing business (e.g. in woody vegetation or soil) will be recognised as an offset for emissions elsewhere in the business (e.g. livestock methane). This issue will be a challenge for livestock industries and policy makers to work through in the coming years.

The intrinsic plasticity of farm businesses and their resilience to change. An Australian example.

This paper examines the idea that plasticity in farm management introduces resilience to change and allows farm businesses to perform when operating in highly variable environments. We also argue for the need to develop and apply more integrative assessments of farm performance that combine the use of modelling tools with deliberative processes involving farmers and researchers in a co-learning process, to more effectively identify and implement more productive and resilient farm businesses. In a plastic farming system, farm management is highly contingent on environmental conditions. In plastic farming systems farm managers constantly vary crops and inputs based on the availability of limited and variable resources (e.g. land, water, finances, labour, machinery, etc.), and signals from its operating environment (e.g. climate, markets), with the objective of maximising a number of, often competing, objectives (e.g. maximise profits, minimise risks, etc.). In contrast in more rigid farming systems farm management is more calendar driven and relatively fixed sequences of crops are regularly followed over time and across the farm. Here we describe the application of a whole farm simulation model to (i) compare, in silico, the sensitivity of two farming systems designs of contrasting levels of plasticity, operating in two contrasting environments, when exposed to a stressor in the form of climate change scenarios;(ii) investigate the presence of interactions and feedbacks at the field and farm levels capable of modifying the intensity and direction of the responses to climate signals; and (iii) discuss the need for the development and application of more integrative assessments in the analysis of impacts and adaptation options to climate change. In both environments, the more plastic farm management strategy had higher median profits and was less risky for the baseline and less intensive climate change scenarios (2030). However, for the more severe climate change scenarios (2070), the benefit of plastic strategies tended to disappear. These results suggest that, to a point, farming systems having higher levels of plasticity would enable farmers to more effectively respond to climate shifts, thus ensuring the economic viability of the farm business. Though, as the intensity of the stress increases (e.g. 2070 climate change scenario) more significant changes in the farming system might be required to adapt. We also found that in the case studies analysed here, most of the impacts from the climate change scenarios on farm profit and economic risk originated from important reductions in cropping intensity and changes in crop mix rather than from changes in the yields of individual crops. Changes in cropping intensity and crop mix were explained by the combination of reductions in the number of sowing opportunities around critical times in the cropping calendar, and to operational constraints at the whole farm level i.e. limited work capacity in an environment having fewer and more concentrated sowing opportunities. This indicates that indirect impacts from shifts in climate on farm operations can be more important than direct impacts from climate on the yield of individual crops. The results suggest that due to the complexity of farm businesses, impact assessments and opportunities for adaptation to climate change might also need to be pursued at higher integration levels than the crop or the field. We conclude that plasticity can be a desirable characteristic in farming systems operating in highly variable environments, and that integrated whole farm systems analyses of impacts and adaptation to climate change are required to identify important interactions between farm management decision rules, availability of resources, and farmer's preference.

Use of business analysis in beef businesses to direct management practice change for climate adaptation outcomes

Beef businesses in northern Australia are facing increased pressure to be productive and profitable with challenges such as climate variability and poor financial performance over the past decade. Declining terms of trade, limited recent gains in on-farm productivity, low profit margins under current management systems and current climatic conditions will leave little capacity for businesses to absorb climate change-induced losses. In order to generate a whole-of-business focus towards management change, the Climate Clever Beef project in the Maranoa-Balonne region of Queensland trialled the use of business analysis with beef producers to improve financial literacy, provide a greater understanding of current business performance and initiate changes to current management practices. Demonstration properties were engaged and a systematic approach was used to assess current business performance, evaluate impacts of management changes on the business and to trial practices and promote successful outcomes to the wider industry. Focus was concentrated on improving financial literacy skills, understanding the business’ key performance indicators and modifying practices to improve both business productivity and profitability. To best achieve the desired outcomes, several extension models were employed: the ‘group facilitation/empowerment model’, the ‘individual consultant/mentor model’ and the ‘technology development model’. Providing producers with a whole-of-business approach and using business analysis in conjunction with on-farm trials and various extension methods proved to be a successful way to encourage producers in the region to adopt new practices into their business, in the areas of greatest impact. The areas targeted for development within businesses generally led to improvements in animal performance and grazing land management further improving the prospects for climate resilience.