An evaluation of carbon offset supplementation options for beef production systems on coastal speargrass in central Queensland, Australia

In 2014, the Australian Government implemented the Emissions Reduction Fund to offer incentives for businesses to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by following approved methods. Beef cattle businesses in northern Australia can participate by applying the 'reducing GHG emissions by feeding nitrates to beef cattle' methodology and the 'beef cattle herd management' methods. The nitrate (NO3) method requires that each baseline area must demonstrate a history of urea use. Projects earn Australian carbon credit units (ACCU) for reducing enteric methane emissions by substituting NO3 for urea at the same amount of fed nitrogen. NO3 must be fed in the form of a lick block because most operations do not have labour or equipment to manage daily supplementation. NO3 concentrations, after a 2-week adaptation period, must not exceed 50 g NO3/adult animal equivalent per day or 7 g NO3/kg dry matter intake per day to reduce the risk of NO3 toxicity. There is also a 'beef cattle herd management' method, approved in 2015, that covers activities that improve the herd emission intensity (emissions per unit of product sold) through change in the diet or management. The present study was conducted to compare the required ACCU or supplement prices for a 2% return on capital when feeding a low or high supplement concentration to breeding stock of either (1) urea, (2) three different forms of NO3 or (3) cottonseed meal (CSM), at N concentrations equivalent to 25 or 50 g urea/animal equivalent, to fasten steer entry to a feedlot (backgrounding), in a typical breeder herd on the coastal speargrass land types in central Queensland. Monte Carlo simulations were run using the software @risk, with probability functions used for (1) urea, NO3 and CSM prices, (2) GHG mitigation, (3) livestock prices and (4) carbon price. Increasing the weight of steers at a set turnoff month by feeding CSM was found to be the most cost-effective option, with or without including the offset income. The required ACCU prices for a 2% return on capital were an order of magnitude higher than were indicative carbon prices in 2015 for the three forms of NO3. The likely costs of participating in ERF projects would reduce the return on capital for all mitigation options. © CSIRO 2016.

Influence of climate variability and stocking strategies on greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE), production and profit of a northern Queensland beef cattle herd

Previous studies of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) from beef production systems in northern Australia have been based on models of ‘steady-state’ herd structures that do not take into account the considerable inter-annual variation in liveweight gain, reproduction and mortality rates that occurs due to seasonal conditions. Nor do they consider the implications of flexible stocking strategies designed to adapt these production systems to the highly variable climate. The aim of the present study was to quantify the variation in total GHGE (t CO2e) and GHGE intensity (t CO2e/t liveweight sold) for the beef industry in northern Australia when variability in these factors was considered. A combined GRASP–Enterprise modelling platform was used to simulate a breeding–finishing beef cattle property in the Burdekin River region of northern Queensland, using historical climate data from 1982–2011. GHGE was calculated using the method of Australian National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Five different stocking-rate strategies were simulated with fixed stocking strategies at moderate and high rates, and three flexible stocking strategies where the stocking rate was adjusted annually by up to 5%, 10% or 20%, according to pasture available at the end of the growing season. Variation in total annual GHGE was lowest in the ‘fixed moderate’ (~9.5 ha/adult equivalent (AE)) stocking strategy, ranging from 3799 to 4471 t CO2e, and highest in the ‘fixed high’ strategy (~5.9 ha/AE), which ranged from 3771 to 7636 t CO2e. The ‘fixed moderate’ strategy had the least variation in GHGE intensity (15.7–19.4 t CO2e/t liveweight sold), while the ‘flexible 20’ strategy (up to 20% annual change in AE) had the largest range (10.5–40.8 t CO2e/t liveweight sold). Across the five stocking strategies, the ‘fixed moderate’ stocking-rate strategy had the highest simulated perennial grass percentage and pasture growth, highest average rate of liveweight gain (121 kg/steer), highest average branding percentage (74%) and lowest average breeding-cow mortality rate (3.9%), resulting in the lowest average GHGE intensity (16.9 t CO2e/t liveweight sold). The ‘fixed high’ stocking rate strategy (~5.9 ha/AE) performed the poorest in each of these measures, while the three flexible stocking strategies were intermediate. The ‘fixed moderate’ stocking strategy also yielded the highest average gross margin per AE carried and per hectare. These results highlight the importance of considering the influence of climate variability on stocking-rate management strategies and herd performance when estimating GHGE. The results also support a body of previous work that has recommended the adoption of moderate stocking strategies to enhance the profitability and ecological stability of beef production systems in northern Australia.

Use of short-term breath measures to estimate daily methane production by cattle

Methods to measure enteric methane (CH4) emissions from individual ruminants in their production environment are required to validate emission inventories and verify mitigation claims. Estimates of daily methane production (DMP) based on consolidated short-term emission measurements are developing, but method verification is required. Two cattle experiments were undertaken to test the hypothesis that DMP estimated by averaging multiple short-term breath measures of methane emission rate did not differ from DMP measured in respiration chambers (RC). Short-term emission rates were obtained from a GreenFeed Emissions Monitoring (GEM) unit, which measured emission rate while cattle consumed a dispensed supplement. In experiment 1 (Expt. 1), four non-lactating cattle (LW=518 kg) were adapted for 18 days then measured for six consecutive periods. Each period consisted of 2 days of ad libitum intake and GEM emission measurement followed by 1 day in the RC. A prototype GEM unit releasing water as an attractant (GEM water) was also evaluated in Expt. 1. Experiment 2 (Expt. 2) was a larger study based on similar design with 10 cattle (LW=365 kg), adapted for 21 days and GEM measurement was extended to 3 days in each of the six periods. In Expt. 1, there was no difference in DMP estimated by the GEM unit relative to the RC (209.7 v. 215.1 g CH4/day) and no difference between these methods in methane yield (MY, 22.7 v. 23.7 g CH4/kg of dry matter intake, DMI). In Expt. 2, the correlation between GEM and RC measures of DMP and MY were assessed using 95% confidence intervals, with no difference in DMP or MY between methods and high correlations between GEM and RC measures for DMP (r=0.85; 215 v. 198 g CH4/day SEM=3.0) and for MY (r=0.60; 23.8 v. 22.1 g CH4/kg DMI SEM=0.42). When data from both experiments was combined neither DMP nor MY differed between GEM- and RC-based measures (P>0.05). GEM water-based estimates of DMP and MY were lower than RC and GEM (P<0.05). Cattle accessed the GEM water unit with similar frequency to the GEM unit (2.8 v. 3.5 times/day, respectively) but eructation frequency was reduced from 1.31 times/min (GEM) to once every 2.6 min (GEM water). These studies confirm the hypothesis that DMP estimated by averaging multiple short-term breath measures of methane emission rate using GEM does not differ from measures of DMP obtained from RCs. Further, combining many short-term measures of methane production rate during supplement consumption provides an estimate of DMP, which can be usefully applied in estimating MY.