Whole farm systems analysis of greenhouse gas abatement options for - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Prime lamb enterprise Lamb liveweight and total GHG emissions 600 6000 Meat (kg LW/ha) Methane (kg CO2e/ha) 500 5000 Lamb production (kg LW sold/ha) GHG emissions (kg CO2e/ha) 400 4000 300 3000 200 2000 100 1000 0 0

Prime lamb enterprise Greenhouse gas emissions intensities Emissions intensity Stocking rate Emissions intensity (kg CO 2 e/ kg LW sold) 12 12 Stocking rate (ewes/ha) 11 10 10 8 9 6 8 4 7 2 6 0

Prime lamb enterprise Greenhouse gas emissions intensities CO 2 ‐ e for methane only; meat sales for lambs only Emissions intensity Stocking rate Emissions intensity (kg CO 2 e/ kg LW sold) 12 12 Stocking rate (ewes/ha) 11 10 10 8 9 6 8 4 7 2 6 0

Prime lamb enterprise Greenhouse gas emissions intensities Emissions intensity Stocking rate Emissions intensity (kg CO 2 e/ kg LW sold) 12 12 Stocking rate (ewes/ha) 11 10 10 8 9 6 8 4 7 2 6 0

Prime lamb enterprise Greenhouse gas emissions intensities Emissions intensity Stocking rate Emissions intensity (kg CO 2 e/ kg LW sold) 12 12 Stocking rate (ewes/ha) 11 10 10 8 9 6 8 4 7 2 6 0

Prime lamb enterprise Greenhouse gas emissions intensities Emissions intensity Stocking rate Emissions intensity (kg CO 2 e/ kg LW sold) 12 12 Stocking rate (ewes/ha) 11 10 10 8 9 6 8 4 7 2 6 0

Prime lamb enterprise Greenhouse gas emissions intensities Emissions intensity Stocking rate Emissions intensity (kg CO 2 e/ kg LW sold) 12 12 Stocking rate (ewes/ha) 11 10 10 8 9 6 8 4 7 2 6 0

Prime lamb enterprise Greenhouse gas emissions intensities Emissions intensity Stocking rate Emissions intensity (kg CO 2 e/ kg LW sold) 12 12 Stocking rate (ewes/ha) 11 10 10 8 9 6 8 4 7 2 6 0

Prime lamb enterprise Greenhouse gas emissions intensities Emissions intensity Stocking rate Emissions intensity (kg CO 2 e/ kg LW sold) 12 12 Stocking rate (ewes/ha) 11 10 10 8 9 6 8 4 7 2 6 0

Prime lamb enterprise Greenhouse gas emissions intensities Emissions intensity Stocking rate Emissions intensity (kg CO 2 e/ kg LW sold) 12 12 Stocking rate (ewes/ha) 11 10 10 8 9 6 8 4 7 2 6 0 Next steps: compute whole ‐ farm GHG emissions, complete analysis and results

Animal genotype & management on wool • Research question: • What is the effect of animal genotype and pasture management on the productivity and greenhouse gas emissions of wool enterprises?

Animal genotype & management on wool Study design and baseline farm • Analysis based on a typical farm at Hamilton (data obtained from South West Livestock Monitor Project) • Pastures of perennial ryegrass and sub ‐ clover • Self ‐ replacing Merino enterprise • Ewes lamb in September, lambs sold as weaners on reaching 18 weeks old • Stocking rates optimised to achieve maximum gross margin within the constraints of 70/70 ground cover rule

Animal genotype & management on wool Effect of lambing time on emissions intensity and gross margin

Animal genotype & management on wool Effect of lambing time on emissions intensity and gross margin CO 2 ‐ e for methane only; product for clean fleece weight

Animal genotype & management on wool Effect of lambing time on emissions intensity and gross margin

Animal genotype & management on wool Effect of lambing time on emissions intensity and gross margin

Animal genotype & management on wool Effect of lambing time on emissions intensity and gross margin Best match of pasture supply to animal demand

Animal genotype & management on wool Effects of reducing maiden ewe mating age Maiden ewe Months 19 months 7 months mating age Ewes mated ewes/ha 10.9 12.9 Young stock sales kg LWT/ha 178 213 Wool production kg clean wool/ha 54 54 Wool emissions % 52 49 Wool emissions t CO 2 ‐ e/ha 3.3 3.3 Wool emissions kg CO 2 ‐ e/kg clean 31.7 30.2 intensity Meat emissions kg CO 2 ‐ e/kg LWT 5.2 5.0 intensity Gross margin $/ha 521 615

Animal genotype & management on wool Effects of reducing maiden ewe mating age Maiden ewe Months 19 months 7 months mating age Ewes mated ewes/ha 10.9 12.9 Young stock sales kg LWT/ha 178 213 Wool production kg clean wool/ha 54 54 Wool emissions % 52 49 Wool emissions t CO 2 ‐ e/ha 3.3 3.3 Wool emissions kg CO 2 ‐ e/kg clean 31.7 30.2 Minimal effect on intensity wool or meat emissions intensity Meat emissions kg CO 2 ‐ e/kg LWT 5.2 5.0 intensity Gross margin $/ha 521 615

Animal genotype & management on wool Effects of reducing maiden ewe mating age Maiden ewe Months 19 months 7 months mating age Ewes mated ewes/ha 10.9 12.9 Young stock sales kg LWT/ha 178 213 Wool production kg clean wool/ha 54 54 Wool emissions % 52 49 Wool emissions t CO 2 ‐ e/ha 3.3 3.3 Wool emissions kg CO 2 ‐ e/kg clean 31.7 30.2 intensity Meat emissions kg CO 2 ‐ e/kg LWT 5.2 5.0 intensity 18% increase in Gross margin $/ha 521 615 gross margin

Animal genotype & management on wool Effects of reducing maiden ewe mating age Maiden ewe Months 19 months 7 months mating age Ewes mated ewes/ha 10.9 12.9 20% increase in Young stock sales kg LWT/ha 178 213 lamb sale LWT Wool production kg clean wool/ha 54 54 Wool emissions % 52 49 Wool emissions t CO 2 ‐ e/ha 3.3 3.3 Wool emissions kg CO 2 ‐ e/kg clean 31.7 30.2 intensity Meat emissions kg CO 2 ‐ e/kg LWT 5.2 5.0 intensity 18% increase in Gross margin $/ha 521 615 gross margin

Animal genotype & management on wool Effects of reducing maiden ewe mating age Maiden ewe Months 19 months 7 months 7 months (base mating age gross margin) Ewes mated ewes/ha 10.9 12.9 11.4 Young stock sales kg LWT/ha 178 213 189 Wool production kg clean wool/ha 54 54 47 Wool emissions % 52 49 48 Wool emissions t CO 2 ‐ e/ha 3.3 3.3 2.9 Wool emissions kg CO 2 ‐ e/kg clean 31.7 30.2 30.0 intensity Meat emissions kg CO 2 ‐ e/kg LWT 5.2 5.0 5.1 intensity Gross margin $/ha 521 615 519 Match gross margin to baseline

Animal genotype & management on wool Effects of reducing maiden ewe mating age Maiden ewe Months 19 months 7 months 7 months (base mating age gross margin) Ewes mated ewes/ha 10.9 12.9 11.4 Young stock sales kg LWT/ha 178 213 189 Wool production kg clean wool/ha 54 54 47 Wool emissions % 52 49 48 Relatively low effect on wool or meat emission intensity… Wool emissions t CO 2 ‐ e/ha 3.3 3.3 2.9 Wool emissions kg CO 2 ‐ e/kg clean 31.7 30.2 30.0 intensity Meat emissions kg CO 2 ‐ e/kg LWT 5.2 5.0 5.1 intensity Gross margin $/ha 521 615 519

Animal genotype & management on wool Effects of reducing maiden ewe mating age Maiden ewe Months 19 months 7 months 7 months (base mating age gross margin) Ewes mated ewes/ha 10.9 12.9 11.4 Young stock sales kg LWT/ha 178 213 189 Wool production kg clean wool/ha 54 54 47 Wool emissions % 52 49 48 Wool emissions t CO 2 ‐ e/ha 3.3 3.3 2.9 Wool emissions kg CO 2 ‐ e/kg clean 31.7 30.2 30.0 … because production is tightly intensity coupled to GHG emissions Meat emissions kg CO 2 ‐ e/kg LWT 5.2 5.0 5.1 intensity Gross margin $/ha 521 615 519

Animal genotype & management on wool Effect of improved fleece weight, methane yield and/or RFI

Animal genotype & management on wool Effect of improved fleece weight, methane yield and/or RFI

Animal genotype & management on wool Effect of improved fleece weight, methane yield and/or RFI

Animal genotype & management on wool Effect of improved fleece weight, methane yield and/or RFI Reductions in total emissions ‐ 5% ‐ 3% ‐ 10% ‐ 15%

Animal genotype & management on wool Effect of improved fleece weight, methane yield and/or RFI

Animal genotype & management on wool Effect of improved fleece weight, methane yield and/or RFI

Animal genotype & management on wool Effect of improved fleece weight, methane yield and/or RFI Lower relative effects of genetic interventions on profit compared with management interventions

Forage legumes for Wool and Prime Lambs enterprises • Research question: • Can Lotus corniculatus pastures reduce methane emissions from wool and prime lamb enterprises in south eastern Australia, without reducing profitability?

Forage Legumes Lotus corniculatus • Condensed ‐ tannin (CT) containing legume • Grows in waterlogged, acidic environments • Responds to summer rainfall • Reduces CH 4 emissions • Has productivity benefits – Increased fecundity – Increased liveweight gain (LWG) of lambs – Increased wool growth of sheep and lambs

Forage Legumes Modelling of wool and prime lamb enterprises – Wool enterprises • Average (17.3 DSE/ha) • Top (20.2 DSE/ha) – Prime lamb enterprises • Average (19.8 DSE/ha) • Top (24.4 DSE/ha) – Baseline systems modelled in GrassGro – Effects of lotus used spreadsheet model – CH 4 from lotus was 5 ‐ 15g CH 4 /kg DMI less than perennial ryegrass Woodward et al., 2001; 2005; Waghorn, 2002

Forage Legumes • Problems with lotus persistence – Initial botanical composition calculated at 40%, 30% and 20% – Declining scale over 10 years – Pasture available per annum was 21%, 16% and 10% • Economics – Median commodity prices 2002 ‐ 2011 – Pasture establishment cost $350/ha – Potential carbon offset income • $6.00/t CO 2 e • $24.15/t CO 2 e Hill et al., 1996

Forage Legumes Additional Income at 40% Units Wool Enterprises Prime Lamb Enterprises initial intake of lotus Avg Top Avg Top 2.08 2.29 2.45 2.91 C offset @ $6/t CO 2 e $/ha C offset @ $24.15/t CO 2 e $/ha 8.39 9.22 9.88 11.71 Increased wool $/ha 17.67 22.89 8.88 12.96 Increased liveweight gain $/ha 6.01 7.09 30.05 37.95 Increased number of lambs $/ha 7.02 8.62 24.24 30.97 CH 4 reduction t CO 2 e/ha 0.35 0.38 0.41 0.48

Forage Legumes

Forage Legumes Future Direction Carbon neutral farming • Model Mark Wotton’s Jigsaw farm in SW Victoria • Verify carbon neutral claim • Analyse the land required for the farm to be carbon neutral and effects on profitability • Publish findings

Beef Systems

Efficient Northern Beef Systems • Research question: • What is the effect of earlier mating and improved weaning % on production, GHG emissions, emissions intensity and profitability from a northern beef herd?

Efficient Northern Beef Systems • Case study property south of Longreach, Qld. • Focus: earlier mating and improved weaning % Herd No. Breeder weight Age at first Weaning Adult (kg) A % B mated joining equivalents Typical 984 481 2 years 62 1748 1752 Early joining 1256 436 1 year 54 Early joining and 1007 435 1 year 79 1748 high fertility A weighted mean of 1 and 2 year old heifers and mature cows mated. B weaners as percentage of all cows mated.

Efficient Northern Beef Systems • Scenario 1: maintain stocking rate (1750 AE) Herd Beef turn ‐ off GHG emissions Emissions intensity Gross (t lwt) (t CO 2 ‐ e) (t CO 2 ‐ e / t lwt) margin ($) Typical 236.3 3,521 14.9 $157,153 Early joining 255.4 3,523 13.8 $178,403 Early joining and 328.8 3,520 10.7 $339,765 high fertility • Scenario 2: maintain beef turnoff (236.3 t lwt) Herd Stocking GHG Gross margin CFI income Total gross ($) A pressure emissions excluding CFI margin ($) (AE) (t CO 2 ‐ e) ($) Typical 1750 3,521 $157,153 $0 $157,153 $165,081 $6,003 $171,084 Early joining 1621 3,260 Early joining and 1259 2,530 $244,630 $22,793 $267,423 high fertility A emissions reduction from ‘typical’ valued at $23/ t CO 2 e, with no compliance cost.

Efficient Northern Beef Systems • Second case study at Boulia, Qld. • Similar focus, earlier mating and improved weaning %, but at: – Larger scale = 128K ha. – Aim for JapOx market.

Efficient Northern Beef Systems • 2 case studies have focused on ‘steady state’ herd structures but this is seldom achieved in highly variable climates. • Possible to include effects of season on reproduction and mortality, thus impacts on total emissions and emissions intensity – Linking with Enterprise model (N MacLeod, CSIRO). – Wambiana site. • Is this a priority for WFSAM?

Feeding nitrates in northern beef systems • Research question: • What is potential of feeding nitrates as a CFI methodology in northern beef grazing systems?

Feeding nitrates in northern beef systems • NO 3 in the rumen – High affinity for H 2 – Limiting CH 4 by reduction of NO 3 to NH 4 • Safe feeding limits in ruminants – 10 to 25g NO 3 /kg DMI (~0.23 to 0.57 % NO 3 ‐ N) – 1 to 1.5 g/kg LWT 0.75 . • Northern rangelands are low in CP and NO 3 – Mainly from June to December – Urea supplementation 4 to 10 g/kg LWT • 30 to 50 g/head/day

Feeding nitrates in northern beef systems • Used Longreach (Peter Whip) case study • Pasture nitrates (assumed) – 0.01 g/kg NO 3 in winter – 0.6 g/kg NO 3 in summer (max) • NO 3 supplemented – 1 and 1.5 g NO 3 /kg LWT 0.75 /day

Feeding nitrates in northern beef systems • B ‐ GAF modified – Stoichiometry • 1 mol NO 3 => 1 mol NH 4 reduces 1 mol CH 4 – Voluntary intake • >8.5 g NO 3 / kg DMI then VI reduced by 7.25% Hulshof et al. 2012 – Dose response effect van Zijderveld et al. (2010, 2011) • ‐ 0.17 x g NO 3 / kg LW 0.75 + 1.13 van Zijderveld et al. (2011) – Additional N 2 O emitted ‐ if N added to diet • Total NO 3 ‐ N converted to CP added to diet

Feeding nitrates in northern beef systems (B ‐ GAF – Nitrates)

Feeding nitrates in northern beef systems Baseline 1g/kg DMI 1.5g/kg DMI Offset Income1g Offset Income1.5g GHG Sources tCO2e tCO2e % tCO2e % $24.15/t $6.80/t $24.15/t $6.80/t 3,342 3,178 ‐ 4.9 3,103 ‐ 7.1 $3,451 $1,110 $5,043 $1,621 CH4 ‐ Enteric 3 3 0 3 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CH4 ‐ Manure 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N 2 O –N Fertiliser 49 55 12.6 58 19.0 ‐ $130 ‐ $42 ‐ $195 ‐ $63 N 2 O ‐ Indirect 109 122 11.6 128 17.4 ‐ $267 ‐ $86 ‐ $400 ‐ $129 N 2 O ‐ Dung,Urine 3,502 3,357 ‐ 4.1 3,292 ‐ 6.0 $3,054 $982 $4,447 $1,430 Net Farm Emissions

Feeding nitrates in northern beef systems Herd GHG emissions Gross margin Difference from after interest ($) typical (t CO 2 ‐ e) Typical A 3,341 $157,153 Typical + Nitrates B 3,165 $161,394 $4,241 (B ‐ A) Early joining and high $182,612 (C ‐ A) 3,342 $339,765 fertility C Early joining and high fertility + Nitrates D $188,370 (D ‐ A) 3,103 $345,523

Feeding nitrates in northern beef systems • Lick Cost (6 months @ 10 ‐ 12c/hd) – $31,959 to $38,351 • Offset gross income – $3,451 to $5,043 @ $24.15/t CO 2 e – $1,110 to $1,621 @ $6.80/t CO 2 e

Net Greenhouse gas and soil carbon balances in grazing systems • Research question: • What is the greenhouse gas balance and long term carbon sequestration impact of grazing management? – Wambiana site – Hamilton LTPE

Wambiana site • 70km south of Charters Towers • Managed by Peter O’Reagain, DAFF Qld • Annual rainfall highly variable, 207 ‐ 1409mm, average 643mm • 1040 ha trial areas, 10 paddocks

Wambiana Developing the SGS model for Northern systems • Based on native pastures for Kidman Springs • New pasture parameter sets for N. Australia – 3P grasses – perennial, persistent, palatable – 2P grasses/other – Wiregrass – Tropical legumes (< 10%) • Soil carbon effects

Wambiana SGS model development • Herd structure being developed – From constant animals to yearly age classes – Development of animals classes for > 1 year – Development of cow/calf herd structure

Wambiana Model validation (work in progress) Pasture Growth Rate (kg/ha/month) 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 GRASP 1000 800 SGS 600 Rainfall 400 200 0

Wambiana Challenges of fitting the SGS model to northern systems • Hundreds of pasture species • Lack of pasture growth rate data • Number of interrelated variables – New pasture parameters – Competition effects – Changes to the SGS model – Unvalidated animal systems – Different soil types

Soil C modelling • Revised model structure to include clay content of soils. • Currently testing the model, but limited data (SCARP dataset available soon). • Refined thinking about the value of soil C in grazing systems (inc. water holding, supply of nutrients) rather than as a CFI methodology alone.

Dairy Systems

3 in 2 milking systems • Research question: • What is the effect of “3 in 2” milking on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of dairy farms?

3 in 2 milking systems • Two Tasmanian dairy farms; Farm 1 in the south and Farm 2 in the north • Milk twice a day for the first ~ 100 days • Post joining change to milking 3 in 2 (5 am and 8pm one day, noon the following day) • 510 & 500 milking events per annum compared to 600 per annum

3 in 2 milking systems • Many reasons for implementing:  Improved lifestyle through reduced labour requirements  Reduced shed consumables  Improved cow performance (decreased lameness, increased live weight gain & improved reproductive performance)  Reduced maintenance (dairy, laneways)

3 in 2 milking systems Emissions intensity Farm 1 Farm 2 TM60 A4N Per tonne milksolids 13.7 14.5 14.5 14.7 Per kg fat and protein corrected milk 1.00 1.08 1.04 1.04 Per milker 5.5 6.3 6.9 6.3 Per hectare 8.0 18.3 12.6 7.7

N use efficiency • Results presented at last ISG workshop and milestone report • Revised paper in review