Unpacking Emissions Efficiency: A Farmer-to-Expert Discussion (Part 1)

The agricultural sector is increasingly focusing on sustainability, making understanding and managing on-farm emissions critical for Australian producers. In this first part of a revealing interview, Ruminati’s Customer Engagement Lead, Bill Findlay (also an Oberon cattle farmer), sits down with emissions expert and Agrista Director, John Francis, to demystify the often complex world of emissions tracking and management.

Together they delve into why monitoring emissions goes beyond just meeting environmental targets, exploring how it can provide valuable insights into farm productivity and efficiency. John also breaks down key concepts like emissions efficiency and CO2​ equivalents, using practical examples to illustrate the link between what you produce and your environmental footprint. 

If you're an Australian producer looking to get a clearer picture of on-farm emissions and how they connect to your overall business, this part of the conversation offers a foundational understanding of these important concepts.

(Please note, this is part 1 of a multi-part series)

Bill: Hi John, let’s get straight into it. Can you explain why tracking emissions is important for Australian producers, beyond just sustainability targets.

John: No worries. Essentially, tracking emissions first helps you understand your production system better because it provides complementary information. It kicks off your understanding of how your business's emissions are linked to what drives them. 

The great thing is that this can help you make changes if you want or need to, improving your emissions efficiency. And the even better part is that what boosts emissions efficiency often comes from boosting production efficiency anyway. So, it's a really helpful way to get a deeper understanding of your business.

Bill: I see. So, as someone that often looks at these kinds of numbers every day, can you give us a bit of background on what emissions efficiency actually means? 

John: Sure. Emissions efficiency looks at a business's total emissions, converted into standard CO2​ equivalents. There are a few key gases involved, and they each have a different impact on warming. For example, methane is significantly more impactful than CO2​- around 28 to 30 times. Nitrous oxide is even more so, about 300 times. So, the main gases we're talking about are carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane. 

To get to emissions efficiency, we convert all these emissions to CO2​ equivalents and then divide that by our production metric, like kilograms of beef. So, if you have a million kilos of CO2​ equivalent emissions and produce 100,000 kilos of beef, that's 10 kilos of emissions per kilo of beef sold. This ratio basically tells us how efficient your beef production is in terms of your business's emissions.

Bill: That makes sense. So, could you give us an example of that link between productivity and emissions efficiency?

John: Let me use an example of a couple of beef businesses that deliver a million kilos of CO2 each​. Those emissions are one part of our ratio, but the other part is the sales from those systems. 

Now, if Business A sells 50,000 kilos of beef, they will have 20 kilos of CO2 emitted per kilo of beef sold. But if Business B sells 100,000 kilos of beef, they will only have 10 kilos of CO2 emitted per kilo of beef sold.

What we can see here, is that Business A has delivered more emissions per kilogram of beef produced compared to Business B. So we’d consider business A’s system to deliver greater emissions intensity and less production efficiency when compared to system B. In other words, it would emit more kilograms of emissions per kilogram of beef sold and it produces less kilograms of beef from the same resource base.

Bill: And what would drive that inefficiency? 

John: Well, it could be several things. It could be that Business A has got steers that haven't weighed very well, or they've taken a long time to get that weight on. It could also be that they’ve got poor genetics and will never get the rate of average daily gain. Or it could be that they’ve got a very cow dominant system and sell very young livestock, so never really get the weight in their livestock. 

Bill: I see. So back to the example, what you’re saying is emissions efficiency compares the total CO2​ equivalent emissions I produce as a farmer to the amount of product I sell each year in kilos.

John: That’s right. And the important part to grasp here, is that from a productivity perspective, we want to know exactly the same thing.

In fact here at Agrista, our productivity benchmarking measures kilograms of beef produced per dry sheep equivalent or DSE. It's a similar idea- a ratio. Specifically, it's the ratio of kilograms of beef produced, not just sold. We calculate that by taking sales, subtracting purchases, and adding any inventory changes, so it's a comprehensive look.

Bill: Can we dive into DSE as a productivity measure for a moment because I think it will provide a bit more clarity on how emissions efficiency and productivity are related.

John: No problems. Think of a DSE as just a standard unit for our system, like CO2 equivalents are for emissions. In beef, it helps us compare beef and sheep. So, when we talk about kilos of beef per DSE, a DSE really represents the energy needed to maintain a standard sheep- specifically a 45-kilo castrated merino, which is about 8.3 megajoules of energy per day.

To put it in perspective, a steer might be equivalent to 8 to 10 DSEs, meaning it consumes a lot more energy daily than a sheep. Our DSE measurement looks at energy use over a whole year. So, kilos of beef per DSE tells us how much beef you produce for every 3,000 or so megajoules of feed energy that 'standard sheep' would consume annually. A productive system might get you 22 kilos of beef per DSE, while an inefficient one might only get 15. It's all about how much you get out for a similar level of 'feed consumption', and that's a very similar concept to how we look at emissions intensity.

Bill: Right, that's a lot to take in, and it’s clear why producers can find it a bit overwhelming with all the talk about reporting and data for things like emissions. So, to keep it simple, what are the key things that really make a difference to a farm's emissions?

John: While emissions reporting might seem like a lot now, it'll likely just become a normal part of farming. Think of it like moving from raw data, things like how much urea you used or how many animals you have, to actual wisdom. 

On its own, that raw data isn't that helpful for making big decisions. Tools like Ruminati help by taking that data and giving it context, turning it into useful information, like how many kilos of methane you produced. Once you have that information, comparing it to others helps you gain knowledge and insight. For example, if someone else is producing beef with fewer emissions per kilo, that tells you there might be room for you to improve. So, yes, there are many data points involved, but that's what's needed to go from just reacting to having a really informed understanding of your business.

Bill: So what are those bits of information that you need? What are some of the really important ones?

John: Well, I think a lot of the big factors come down to how many animals you have, when you sell them, and how much they weigh. These things aren't just about emissions; they tell you a lot about your whole farming operation. 

When you put that data into a tool like Ruminati and get some results, what you should be thinking is how you can then use and play around with it. What if you sold your livestock a bit later? What if you had slightly fewer animals? You can see how those changes might affect your emissions intensity or your total emissions. That ability to run these 'what if' scenarios is where the real power of these tools lies, helping you understand how different decisions impact your emissions.

Bill: So, can you give us a real world example of this? 

John: Of course. I was looking at using urea in a grazing system the other day. Right now it's dry, and we’ve got businesses here that are looking to boost feed growth, which makes sense given the lack of autumn feed. The options are things like bringing in supplementary feed or using urea or gibberellic acid, or a mix, to produce more feed. What surprised me when I put urea into the Ruminati tool and factored in the extra production, was that the total emissions went up, and the emissions intensity didn't really get better- it might even get worse. That was an eye opener for me.

Bill: Now, and I’m flexing my own knowledge of emissions here, is that because urea turns into nitrous oxide, and like you mentioned earlier that has a very high CO2 equivalent?

John: That's exactly what it is, Bill. You’re absolutely right. Urea, if not used appropriately, can release nitrous oxide, which, as we said, has a really high warming impact- 300 times the potency. So, even if you get more feed growth with urea, that nitrous oxide can cancel out any gains in emissions intensity. Emissions are also increased in the manufacturing process and you inherit those emissions when you bring urea onto the farm. These “bought in emissions” are called Scope Three emissions.

And it’s because of that result that I then looked at gibberellic acid, which is a natural hormone that helps winter pasture growth, and is typically used in perennial temperate pastures. What I found was that using it led to a very small increase in Scope Three emissions because it is very concentrated so it's used at a low rate. But, it can give you a good boost in pasture. If you then use that extra grass to raise more livestock or get more weight out of the same animals, you actually do see an improvement in emissions intensity. That's because you're selling more kilos of beef from the extra grass. So, that little experiment showed how you can use these tools to figure out if a change you're thinking about will actually improve your emissions intensity, versus just increasing overall production. 

Now, it doesn't mean not to use urea, because it might be better for your business from an economic point of view, but it makes you take the emissions side into account when compared to something like gibberellic acid.

Bill: Or thinking of it another way, it might let you know when to use urea and when to use gibberellic acid to get the best outcome throughout the whole year.

John: Absolutely. When you're in a tough spot with feed, you have to think about the alternatives. If you didn't use something like urea to boost pasture, you'd probably have to bring in extra feed. But bringing in supplementary feed also adds to your 'scope three' emissions, because of transport and production off-farm. So, you're really weighing up the scope three emissions from bringing in feed against the scope three emissions from the urea itself, plus that potential for a big jump in emissions from nitrous oxide. So, using urea might solve one problem but create another emissions-wise.

- Stay Tuned for Part 2 -