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.

Down scaling to regional assessment of greenhouse gas emissions to enable consistency in accounting for emissions reduction projects and national inventory accounts for northern beef production in Australia

This paper explores the effect of using regional data for livestock attributes on estimation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the northern beef industry in Australia, compared with using state/territory-wide values, as currently used in Australia’s national GHG inventory report. Regional GHG emissions associated with beef production are reported for 21 defined agricultural statistical regions within state/territory jurisdictions. A management scenario for reduced emissions that could qualify as an Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) project was used to illustrate the effect of regional level model parameters on estimated abatement levels. Using regional parameters, instead of state level parameters, for liveweight (LW), LW gain and proportion of cows lactating and an expanded number of livestock classes, gives a 5.2% reduction in estimated emissions (range +12% to –34% across regions). Estimated GHG emissions intensity (emissions per kilogram of LW sold) varied across the regions by up to 2.5-fold, ranging from 10.5 kg CO2-e kg–1 LW sold for Darling Downs, Queensland, through to 25.8 kg CO2-e kg–1 LW sold for the Pindan and North Kimberley, Western Australia. This range was driven by differences in production efficiency, reproduction rate, growth rate and survival. This suggests that some regions in northern Australia are likely to have substantial opportunities for GHG abatement and higher livestock income. However, this must be coupled with the availability of management activities that can be implemented to improve production efficiency; wet season phosphorus (P) supplementation being one such practice. An ERF case study comparison showed that P supplementation of a typical-sized herd produced an estimated reduction of 622 t CO2-e year–1, or 7%, compared with a non-P supplemented herd. However, the different model parameters used by the National Inventory Report and ERF project means that there was an anomaly between the herd emissions for project cattle excised from the national accounts (13 479 t CO2-e year–1) and the baseline herd emissions estimated for the ERF project (8 896 t CO2-e year–1) before P supplementation was implemented. Regionalising livestock model parameters in both ERF projects and the national accounts offers the attraction of being able to more easily and accurately reflect emissions savings from this type of emissions reduction project in Australia’s national GHG accounts.