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.

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.

Objectives for management of socio-ecological systems in the Great Barrier Reef region, Australia

A wide range of goals and objectives have to be taken into account in natural resources management. Defining these objectives in operational terms, including dimensions such as sustainability, productivity, and equity, is by no means easy, especially if they must capture the diversity of community and stakeholder values. This is especially true in the coastal zone where land activities affect regional marine ecosystems. In this study, the aim was firstly to identify and hierarchically organise the goals and objectives for coastal systems, as defined by local stakeholders. Two case study areas are used within the Great Barrier Reef region being Mackay and Bowen–Burdekin. Secondly, the aim was to identify similarities between the case study results and thus develop a generic set of goals to be used as a starting point in other coastal communities. Results show that overarching high-level goals have nested sub-goals that contain a set of more detailed regional objectives. The similarities in high-level environmental, governance, and socio-economic goals suggest that regionally specific objectives can be developed based on a generic set of goals. The prominence of governance objectives reflects local stakeholder perceptions that current coastal zone management is not achieving the outcomes they feel important and that there is a need for increased community engagement and co-management. More importantly, it raises the question of how to make issues relevant for the local community and entice participation in the local management of public resources to achieve sustainable environmental, social, and economic management outcomes. © 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

Bioeconomic modelling of woody regrowth carbon offset options in productive grazing systems

Agricultural land has been identified as a potential source of greenhouse gas emissions offsets through biosequestration in vegetation and soil. In the extensive grazing land of Australia, landholders may participate in the Australian Government’s Emissions Reduction Fund and create offsets by reducing woody vegetation clearing and allowing native woody plant regrowth to grow. This study used bioeconomic modelling to evaluate the trade-offs between an existing central Queensland grazing operation, which has been using repeated tree clearing to maintain pasture growth, and an alternative carbon and grazing enterprise in which tree clearing is reduced and the additional carbon sequestered in trees is sold. The results showed that ceasing clearing in favour of producing offsets produces a higher net present value over 20 years than the existing cattle enterprise at carbon prices, which are close to current (2015) market levels (~$13 t–1 CO2-e). However, by modifying key variables, relative profitability did change. Sensitivity analysis evaluated key variables, which determine the relative profitability of carbon and cattle. In order of importance these were: the carbon price, the gross margin of cattle production, the severity of the tree–grass relationship, the area of regrowth retained, the age of regrowth at the start of the project, and to a lesser extent the cost of carbon project administration, compliance and monitoring. Based on the analysis, retaining regrowth to generate carbon income may be worthwhile for cattle producers in Australia, but careful consideration needs to be given to the opportunity cost of reduced cattle income.

Carbon losses in terrestrial hydrological pathways in sugarcane cropping systems of Australia

Climate change and carbon (C) sequestration are a major focus of research in the twenty-first century. Globally, soils store about 300 times the amount of C that is released per annum through the burning of fossil fuels (Schulze and Freibauer 2005). Land clearing and introduction of agricultural systems have led to rapid declines in soil C reserves. The recent introduction of conservation agricultural practices has not led to a reversing of the decline in soil C content, although it has minimized the rate of decline (Baker et al. 2007; Hulugalle and Scott 2008). Lal (2003) estimated the quantum of C pools in the atmosphere, terrestrial ecosystems, and oceans and reported a “missing C” component in the world C budget. Though not proven yet, this could be linked to C losses through runoff and soil erosion (Lal 2005) and a lack of C accounting in inland water bodies (Cole et al. 2007). Land management practices to minimize the microbial respiration and soil organic C (SOC) decline such as minimum tillage or no tillage were extensively studied in the past, and the soil erosion and runoff studies monitoring those management systems focused on other nutrients such as nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P).

Assessing and reducing vulnerability to climate change: Moving from theory to practical decision-support

As climate change continues to impact socio-ecological systems, tools that assist conservation managers to understand vulnerability and target adaptations are essential. Quantitative assessments of vulnerability are rare because available frameworks are complex and lack guidance for dealing with data limitations and integrating across scales and disciplines. This paper describes a semi-quantitative method for assessing vulnerability to climate change that integrates socio-ecological factors to address management objectives and support decision-making. The method applies a framework first adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and uses a structured 10-step process. The scores for each framework element are normalized and multiplied to produce a vulnerability score and then the assessed components are ranked from high to low vulnerability. Sensitivity analyses determine which indicators most influence the analysis and the resultant decision-making process so data quality for these indicators can be reviewed to increase robustness. Prioritisation of components for conservation considers other economic, social and cultural values with vulnerability rankings to target actions that reduce vulnerability to climate change by decreasing exposure or sensitivity and/or increasing adaptive capacity. This framework provides practical decision-support and has been applied to marine ecosystems and fisheries, with two case applications provided as examples: (1) food security in Pacific Island nations under climate-driven fish declines, and (2) fisheries in the Gulf of Carpentaria, northern Australia. The step-wise process outlined here is broadly applicable and can be undertaken with minimal resources using existing data, thereby having great potential to inform adaptive natural resource management in diverse locations.