Grazing management for soil carbon in Australia: A review.

The livestock industry accounts for a considerable proportion of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, and in response, the Australian red meat industry has committed to an aspirational target of net-zero emissions by 2030. Increasing soil carbon storage in grazing lands has been identified as one method to help achieve this, while also potentially improving production and provision of other ecosystem services. This review examined the effects of grazing management on soil carbon and factors that drive soil carbon sequestration in Australia. A systematic literature search and meta-analysis was used to compare effects of stocking intensity (stocking rate or utilisation) and stocking method (i.e, continuous, rotational or seasonal grazing systems) on soil organic carbon, pasture herbage mass, plant growth and ground cover. Impacts on below ground biomass, soil nitrogen and soil structure are also discussed. Overall, no significant impact of stocking intensity or method on soil carbon sequestration in Australia was found, although lower stocking intensity and incorporating periods of rest into grazing systems (rotational grazing) had positive effects on herbage mass and ground cover compared with higher stocking intensity or continuous grazing. Minimal impact of grazing management on pasture growth rate and below-ground biomass has been reported in Australia. However, these factors improved with grazing intensity or rotational grazing in some circumstances. While there is a lack of evidence in Australia that grazing management directly increases soil carbon, this meta-analysis indicated that grazing management practices have potential to benefit the drivers of soil carbon sequestration by increasing above and below-ground plant production, maintaining a higher residual biomass, and promoting productive perennial pasture species. Specific recommendations for future research and management are provided in the paper.

Whole farm planning raises profit despite burgeoning climate crisis.

The climate crisis challenges farmer livelihoods as increasingly frequent extreme weather events impact the quantum and consistency of crop production. Here, we develop a novel paradigm to raise whole farm profit by optimising manifold variables that drive the profitability of irrigated grain farms. We build then invoke a new decision support tool-WaterCan Profit-to optimise crop type and areas that collectively maximise farm profit. We showcase four regions across a climate gradient in the Australian cropping zone. The principles developed can be applied to cropping regions or production systems anywhere in the world. We show that the number of profitable crop types fell from 35 to 10 under future climates, reflecting the interplay between commodity price, yield, crop water requirements and variable costs. Effects of climate change on profit were not related to long-term rainfall, with future climates depressing profit by 11-23% relative to historical climates. Impacts of future climates were closely related to crop type and maturity duration; indeed, many crop types that were traditionally profitable under historical climates were no longer profitable in future. We demonstrate that strategic whole farm planning of crop types and areas can yield significant economic benefits. We suggest that future work on drought adaptation consider genetic selection criteria more diverse than phenology and yield alone. Crop types with (1) higher value per unit grain weight, (2) lower water requirements and (3) higher water-use efficiency are more likely to ensure the sustainability and prosperity of irrigated grain production systems under future climates.

The environmental costs and benefits of high-yield farming.

How we manage farming and food systems to meet rising demand is pivotal to the future of biodiversity. Extensive field data suggest impacts on wild populations would be greatly reduced through boosting yields on existing farmland so as to spare remaining natural habitats. High-yield farming raises other concerns because expressed per unit area it can generate high levels of externalities such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and nutrient losses. However, such metrics underestimate the overall impacts of lower-yield systems, so here we develop a framework that instead compares externality and land costs per unit production. Applying this to diverse datasets describing the externalities of four major farm sectors reveals that, rather than involving trade-offs, the externality and land costs of alternative production systems can co-vary positively: per unit production, land-efficient systems often produce lower externalities. For GHG emissions these associations become more strongly positive once forgone sequestration is included. Our conclusions are limited: remarkably few studies report externalities alongside yields; many important externalities and farming systems are inadequately measured; and realising the environmental benefits of high-yield systems typically requires additional measures to limit farmland expansion. Yet our results nevertheless suggest that trade-offs among key cost metrics are not as ubiquitous as sometimes perceived.