Is land condition a useful indicator of soil organic carbon stock in Australia?

The grazing lands of northern Australia contain a substantial soil organic carbon (SOC) stock due to the large land area. Manipulating SOC stocks through grazing management has been presented as an option to offset national greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and other industries. However, research into the response of SOC stocks to a range of management activities has variously shown positive, negative or negligible change. This uncertainty in predicting change in SOC stocks represents high project risk for government and industry in relation to SOC sequestration programs. In this paper, we seek to address the uncertainty in SOC stock prediction by assessing relationships between SOC stocks and grazing land condition indicators. We reviewed the literature to identify land condition indicators for analysis and tested relationships between identified land condition indicators and SOC stock using data from a paired-site sampling experiment (10 sites). We subsequently collated SOC stock datasets at two scales (quadrat and paddock) from across northern Australia (329 sites) to compare with the findings of the paired-site sampling experiment with the aim of identifying the land condition indicators that had the strongest relationship with SOC stock. The land condition indicators most closely correlated with SOC stocks across datasets and analysis scales were tree basal area, tree canopy cover, ground cover, pasture biomass and the density of perennial grass tussocks. In combination with soil type, these indicators accounted for up to 42% of the variation in the residuals after climate effects were removed. However, we found that responses often interacted with soil type, adding complexity and increasing the uncertainty associated with predicting SOC stock change at any particular location. We recommend that caution be exercised when considering SOC offset projects in northern Australian grazing lands due to the risk of incorrectly predicting changes in SOC stocks with change in land condition indicators and management activities for a particular paddock or property. Despite the uncertainty for generating SOC sequestration income, undertaking management activities to improve land condition is likely to have desirable complementary benefits such as improving productivity and profitability as well as reducing adverse environmental impact.

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.

Strategic tillage in no-till farming systems in Australia's northern grains-growing regions: I. Drivers and implementation

Development of no-tillage (NT) farming has revolutionized agricultural systems by allowing growers to manage greater areas of land with reduced energy, labour and machinery inputs to control erosion, improve soil health and reduce greenhouse gas emission. However, NT farming systems have resulted in a build-up of herbicide-resistant weeds, an increased incidence of soil- and stubble-borne diseases and enrichment of nutrients and carbon near the soil surface. Consequently, there is an increased interest in the use of an occasional tillage (termed strategic tillage, ST) to address such emerging constraints in otherwise-NT farming systems. Decisions around ST uses will depend upon the specific issues present on the individual field or farm, and profitability and effectiveness of available options for management. This paper explores some of the issues with the implementation of ST in NT farming systems. The impact of contrasting soil properties, the timing of the tillage and the prevailing climate exert a strong influence on the success of ST. Decisions around timing of tillage are very complex and depend on the interactions between soil water content and the purpose for which the ST is intended. The soil needs to be at the right water content before executing any tillage, while the objective of the ST will influence the frequency and type of tillage implement used. The use of ST in long-term NT systems will depend on factors associated with system costs and profitability, soil health and environmental impacts. For many farmers maintaining farm profitability is a priority, so economic considerations are likely to be a primary factor dictating adoption. However, impacts on soil health and environment, especially the risk of erosion and the loss of soil carbon, will also influence a grower's choice to adopt ST, as will the impact on soil moisture reserves in rainfed cropping systems. © 2015 Elsevier B.V.