CRICOS No J a university for the world real R Queensland University of Technology CRICOS No J Beverley Henry, Queensland University of Technology Stephen Wiedemann, FSA Consulting Tom Davison, Meat and Livestock Australia Managing greenhouse gas intensity and resource use for beef cattle in Australia

CRICOS No J a university for the world real R Results of an Australian beef LCA PRODUCTION: 52% increase in total beef produced from 1981 to WATER: 65% reduction in water use from 1981 to 2010 (1465 to 515 L/ kg LW). ENERGY: 75% i ncrease in fossil fuel energy demand from 1981 to 2010 (6.3 to 11 MJ/kg LW). LAND: 700% increase in arable land occupation (0.2 – 1.7Mha) 19% decrease in non-arable land (from 57% to 46% of Australia’s total area) CLIMATE CHANGE: 14% decrease in GHG intensity (excluding LUC) from 1981 to 2010 (15.3 to13.1 kg CO2e/ kg LW) ~41% decline in net LUC GHG emissions for beef.

CRICOS No J a university for the world real R Interpreting the results for Australian beef Challenges: Data & Methodology: Non-uniform variations in data availability and quality; methods? eg land use Context and reasons for changes: Management and natural factors interact in complex ways

CRICOS No J a university for the world real R Tropical Temperate Environmental context for Australian beef Distance, arid/semi-arid rangelands, nutrient-poor soils Based on a standard 30-year climatology ( ) BoM Source: BoM & MLA

CRICOS No J a university for the world real R Beef production LCA beef regions Understanding development of the industry Expansion of pastoralism

CRICOS No J a university for the world real R Water use for beef production % reduction in consumptive water use (1465 L/ kg LW in 1981 to 515 L / kg LW in 2010) Fresh water consumption (L per kg LW)

CRICOS No J a university for the world real R Fossil fuel energy demand for beef production Fossil fuel energy demand increased by 75% (6.3 to 11 MJ/kg LW) Energy demand (MJ per kg LW)

CRICOS No J a university for the world real R LAND: 700% increase in arable land occupation (0.2 – 1.7Mha) 19% decrease in non-arable land (from 57% to 46% of Australia’s total area) Land occupation for beef production 19% decrease in non-arable land (57% to 46% of Australia’s total area of 7.7 M km 2 ) fold increase in arable land use (0.2 – 1.7Mha)

CRICOS No J a university for the world real R GHG emissions intensity 41% decrease in net LUC emissions for beef (higher uncertainty) 14% decrease in GHG intensity (exclu LUC) GHG emissions (kg CO 2 -e per kg LW) Examples of production changes Carcase weight increased by 13.5% Mortality rates down from 4.0% to 2.7% Weaning rates showed little change

CRICOS No J a university for the world real R Carbon credit incentives = opportunities?? Notes: Values for total over the crediting period and maximum carbon abatement contract duration, e.g. 7 yrs for Herd Management Method Expenses include reporting and auditing but not capital expenditure or non-carbon revenue impacts. Analysis identified the best opportunities for Australian beef producers as:  Herd Management for backgrounding operations when large (>30,000 AE) [to minimise compliance costs per credit unit]  Nitrates where high level supplementation given to more cattle (>50,000 AE)  Savannah burning projects in non-productive [high rainfall >1000mm] pastoral areas with recurring late dry season wildfires  Native forest projects [Avoided tree clearing and managed native regrowth] variable potential depending on scale and site productivity Analysis of opportunities for income from GHG mitigation in Australia’s Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF)

CRICOS No J a university for the world real R Summary LCA results for Australia’s beef industry generally show:  positive trend in resource use efficiency;  negative trend in emissions intensity. Consistency in data quality/completeness and methodology is a challenge! Producers are already making changes mostly for productivity and profitability but are improving environmental outcomes. Future gains will benefit from new technologies but be challenged by climate variability/change. Opportunities for income from carbon credits exist, but magnitude and direction depend on scale and admin costs. Good record keeping is critical.

CRICOS No J a university for the world real R THANK YOU We gratefully acknowledge MLA for financial support for the LCA study and leadership in the ERF analysis; QUT for support for the LCA study; Phil Cohn for financial analysis of ERF opportunities