Can soil and tree carbon sequestration maintain zero net emissions grazing?
A. Macdonald

A
B
C
D
Abstract
Goals set by countries and corporate entities in response to the Paris climate agreement (COP21) have put a focus on livestock producers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe). However, methods to reduce emissions in livestock enterprises are limited. One option to reduce the balance of GHGe produced on farms is to sequester carbon in soils and trees within the farm boundary.
To assess the effectiveness of carbon sequestration in maintaining net zero emissions on a grazing enterprise (Jigsaw Farms). A previous study indicated that a single property in this enterprise (Hensley Park) achieved net zero status in 2014.
Net emissions produced by the enterprise across two properties (Melville Forrest and Hensley Park) were estimated by calculating on-farm and pre-farm emissions, using the IPCC-approved method, SB-GAFv2.3, FullCAM, and soil data provided by Jigsaw Farms. Emissions and vegetation sequestration results were validated through field data and farm records.
From 2010 to 2014, Jigsaw Farm’s Hensley Park property sequestered more carbon in trees and soils than the equivalent GHGe produced. Trees, on average, provided 89% of the sequestration and soils provided 11%. After this, an increase in GHGe from higher animal numbers and declining sequestration rates meant the enterprise was no longer net zero. Emissions in 2021 were 10,870 t carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-e), while vegetation sequestered 6704 t CO2-e. Data was insufficient to assess soil carbon sequestration. Although net emissions increased, the emissions intensity of products was halved due to sequestration.
Although increased woody vegetation on-farm enabled achievement of net zero emissions, maintaining this position using only sequestration has proven challenging. Other on-farm benefits of trees and shrubs, such as shade and shelter for animals from climatic extremes, conservation and aesthetic benefits, are important in decisions to integrate trees.
The level of emission reduction achieved by trees can be increased, and the period of emissions reduction extended, by expanding tree plantings, staging plantings over time, using faster-growing species or, in the longer term, harvesting trees for timber and accounting for carbon stored in long-lived products. However, relying on sequestration alone cannot indefinitely meet net zero emission objectives.
Keywords: agricultural systems, carbon account, carbon audit, global climate change, greenhouse gases, insetting, methane, nitrous oxide.
References
Alvarez-Hess PS, Little SM, Moate PJ, Jacobs JL, Beauchemin KA, Eckard RJ (2019) A partial life cycle assessment of the greenhouse gas mitigation potential of feeding 3-nitrooxypropanol and nitrate to cattle. Agricultural Systems 169, 14-23.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Clark SG, Donnelly JR, Moore AD (2000) The GrassGro decision support tool: its effectiveness in simulating pasture and animal production and value in determining research priorities. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40, 247.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Clean Energy Regulator (2024) Understanding your plantation forestry project: Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme simple method guide for plantation forestry projects registered under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Plantation Forestry) Methodology Determination 2022. Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, GPO Box 3090, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
Doran-Browne N, Wootton M, Taylor C, Eckard R (2018) Offsets required to reduce the carbon balance of sheep and beef farms through carbon sequestration in trees and soils. Animal Production Science 58, 1648.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Eckard RJ, Clark H (2018) Potential solutions to the major greenhouse-gas issues facing Australasian dairy farming. Animal Production Science 60, 10-16.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
IPCC (1996) Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Table of GWP values, Chapter 2 [Core Writing Team J.T Houghton, L.G.M Filho, B.A Callander, N Harris, A Kattenberg and K Maskell (eds.)]. IPCC, Cambridge, Great Britain.
Jeffrey SJ, Carter JO, Moodie KB, Beswick AR (2001) Using spatial interpolation to construct a comprehensive archive of Australian climate data. Environmental Modelling & Software 16, 309-330.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Kingwell R (2021) Agriculture’s carbon neutral challenge: the case of Western Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 65, 566-595.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Mitchell E, Takeda N, Grace L, Grace P, Day K, Ahmadi S, Badgery W, Cowie A, Simmons A, Eckard R, Harrison MT, Parton W, Wilson B, Orgill S, Viscarra Rossel RA, Pannell D, Stanley P, Deane F, Rowlings D (2024) Making soil carbon credits work for climate change mitigation. Carbon Management 15, 2430780.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Monckton D, Mendham DS (2022) Maximising the benefits of trees on farms in Tasmania – a desktop review of investment opportunities to improve farm enterprise productivity, profitability and sustainability. Australian Forestry 85, 6-12.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Moore, A, Herrmann, N (2023) GrassGro version 11. Retrieved on 3 October 2022 from https://grazplan.csiro.au/grassgro/
Paul KI, Roxburgh SH, Chave J, England JR, Zerihun A, Specht A, Lewis T, Bennett LT, Baker TG, Adams MA, Huxtable D, Montagu KD, Falster DS, Feller M, Sochacki S, Ritson P, Bastin G, Bartle J, Wildy D, Hobbs T, Larmour J, Waterworth R, Stewart HTL, Jonson J, Forrester DI, Applegate G, Mendham D, Bradford M, O’Grady A, Green D, Sudmeyer R, Rance SJ, Turner J, Barton C, Wenk EH, Grove T, Attiwill PM, Pinkard E, Butler D, Brooksbank K, Spencer B, Snowdon P, O’Brien N, Battaglia M, Cameron DM, Hamilton S, McAuthur G, Sinclair J (2016) Testing the generality of above-ground biomass allometry across plant functional types at the continent scale. Global Change Biology 22, 2106-2124.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Richards GP, Evans DMW (2004) Development of a carbon accounting model (FullCAM Vers. 1.0) for the Australian continent. Australian Forestry 67, 277-283.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
UNFCCC (2022) Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-sixth session, held in Glasgow from 31 October to 13 November 2021. Addendum Part two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-sixth session. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), FCCC/CP/2021/12/Add.1.
Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B, Reinhard J, Moreno-Ruiz E, Weidema B (2016) The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 21, 1218-1230.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Wiedemann SG, Ledgard SF, Henry BK, Yan M-J, Mao N, Russell SJ (2015) Application of life cycle assessment to sheep production systems: investigating co-production of wool and meat using case studies from major global producers. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 20, 463-476.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Wiedemann S, McGahan E, Murphy C, Yan M (2016a) Resource use and environmental impacts from beef production in eastern Australia investigated using life cycle assessment. Animal Production Science 56, 882-894.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Wiedemann SG, Yan MJ, Henry BK, Murphy CM (2016b) Resource use and greenhouse gas emissions from three wool production regions in Australia. Journal of Cleaner Production 122, 121-132.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Zomer RJ, Bossio DA, Trabucco A, van Noordwijk M, Xu J (2022) Global carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry and increased tree cover on agricultural land. Circular Agricultural Systems 2, 1-10.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |