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.

Preliminary investigation into development of forage budget application and device

Forage budgeting, land condition monitoring and maintaining ground cover residuals are critical management practices for the long term sustainability of the northern grazing industry. The aim of this project is to do a preliminary investigation into industry need, feasibility and willingness to adopt a simple to use hand-held hardware device and compatible, integrated software applications that can be used in the paddock by producers, to assist in land condition monitoring and forage budgeting for better Grazing Land Management and to assist with compliance.

Re-use of chicken litter across broiler cycles – managing the food-borne pathogen risk

Thus the objectives of this study can be broadly categorised as follows:-  Evaluate current practices adopted (e.g. litter pile-up) prior to re-use of litter for subsequent chicken cycles  To establish pathogen die-off that occurs during currently adopted methods of in-shed treatment of litter  To establish simple physical parameters to monitor this pathogen reduction and create an understanding of such reduction strategies to aid in-shed management of re-use litter  To carry out studies to assess the potential of the re-used litter (once spread) to support pathogens during a typical chicken production cycle.  To provide background data for the development of a simple code of practice for an in-shed litter pile-up process

On-farm Campylobacter and Escherichia coli in commercial broiler chickens: Re-used bedding does not influence Campylobacter emergence and levels across sequential farming cycles

Limitations in quality bedding material have resulted in the growing need to re-use litter during broiler farming in some countries, which can be of concern from a food-safety perspective. The aim of this study was to compare the Campylobacter levels in ceca and litter across three litter treatments under commercial farming conditions. The litter treatments were (a) the use of new litter after each farming cycle; (b) an Australian partial litter re-use practice; and (c) a full litter re-use practice. The study was carried out on two farms over two years (Farm 1, from 2009–2010 and Farm 2, from 2010–2011), across three sheds (35,000 to 40,000 chickens/shed) on each farm, adopting three different litter treatments across six commercial cycles. A random sampling design was adopted to test litter and ceca for Campylobacter and Escherichia coli, prior to commercial first thin-out and final pick-up. Campylobacter levels varied little across litter practices and farming cycles on each farm and were in the range of log 8.0–9.0 CFU/g in ceca and log 4.0–6.0 MPN/g for litter. Similarly the E. coli in ceca were ∼log 7.0 CFU/g. At first thin-out and final pick-up, the statistical analysis for both litter and ceca showed that the three-way interaction (treatments by farms by times) was highly significant (P < 0.01), indicating that the patterns of Campylobacter emergence/presence across time vary between the farms, cycles and pickups. The emergence and levels of both organisms were not influenced by litter treatments across the six farming cycles on both farms. Either C. jejuni or C. coli could be the dominant species across litter and ceca, and this phenomenon could not be attributed to specific litter treatments. Irrespective of the litter treatments in place, cycle 2 on Farm 2 remained campylobacter-free. These outcomes suggest that litter treatments did not directly influence the time of emergence and levels of Campylobacter and E. coli during commercial farming.