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.

Farm practices to manage the impact of severe tropical cyclone damage on banana production – a case study from tropical Australia

Most Australian banana production occurs on the north-eastern tropical coast between latitudes 15-18°S, and can experience summer cyclone activity. Damage from severe tropical cyclones has serious impact on banana-based livelihoods. The most significant impacts include immediate loss of production and income for several months, the region-wide synchronization of cropping and the expense of rehabilitating affected plantations. Severe tropical cyclones have directly affected the main production region twice in recent years Tropical Cyclone (TC) Larry (Category 4) in March 2006 and TC Yasi (Category 5) in February 2011. Based on TC Larry experiences, pre- and post-cyclone farm practices were developed to reduce these impacts in future cyclonic events. The main pre-cyclone farm practice focused on maintaining production units and an earlier return to fruit production by partially or completely removing the plant canopy to reduce wind resistance. Post-cyclone farm practices focused on managing the industry-wide crop synchronization using crop timing techniques to achieve a staggered return to cropping by scheduling production to provide continuous fruit supply. With TC Yasi in 2011, some banana producers implemented these practices, allowing them to examine their effectiveness in reducing cyclonic impacts. Additional research and development activities were conducted to refine our understanding of their effectiveness and improve their application for future cyclonic events. Based on these activities and farm-based observations, suggested practice-based management strategies can be developed to help reduce the impact of severe tropical cyclones in the future. Canopy removal maintained banana plants as productive units, and provided earlier but smaller bunches, generating earlier-than-expected income. Queensland producers expressed willingness to adopt canopy removal for future cyclone threats where appropriate, despite its labor-intensiveness. Mechanization would allow larger scale adoption. Implementing a staggered cropping program successfully achieved a consistent, continuous fruit supply after a cyclone impact. Both techniques should be applicable to other cyclone-prone regions.