Unpacking Emissions Efficiency: A Farmer-to-Expert Discussion (Part 2)

In Part 2 of this ongoing conversation, Ruminati’s Bill Findlay continues his chat with Agrista Director and emissions expert John Francis, digging deeper into the relationship between production efficiency and emissions outcomes.

This time, they explore how a well-designed, responsive farm system is key to getting the most from your feed and delivering both economic and environmental benefits. From managing seasonal variability to the role of mindset in farming decisions, this part of the interview offers practical insights for producers looking to future-proof their businesses.

Whether you're focused on profitability, sustainability, or both, this instalment unpacks the real levers that drive emissions efficiency on-farm.

Bill: So in the past I've listened to some of your podcasts, and you often talk about matching stocking rate to carrying capacity. In terms of emissions, does this still ring true for improving efficiency?

John: You're on the right track, but it's not quite a direct parallel. My usual advice for boosting profitability in livestock is to increase feed utilisation, which generally means getting more production per hectare. Farmers who use their feed more efficiently tend to be more profitable. This is because they're generating more production and spreading their fixed overhead costs across more productive units, making those costs smaller per unit of production.

However, when it comes to emissions, it's different. If you increase feed utilisation by simply adding more livestock, those new animals will consume more feed and, in turn, emit more. Instead, the biggest gains in emissions efficiency will probably come from improving your overall system, genetics, and feed base- focusing on better converting feed into beef, wool, or lamb, rather than just adding more animals.

In the economic model, a large part of your costs are fixed overheads, so adding more production dilutes those costs. But with emissions, Scope 3 emissions, like those from feed coming onto the farm, are a much smaller piece of the total. When you add another animal, you're primarily adding more methane and Scope 1 emissions directly from that animal, which isn't diluted in the same way overhead costs are. So, simply increasing animal numbers doesn't necessarily improve emissions efficiency as it does economic efficiency.

Bill: I see, but what about in a cow-calf operation? From my own experience here, what you're trying to do is to dilute the maintenance requirements of the cow. Since she's there every year, the more you can produce from her and her offspring, the better your emissions profile is likely to be, isn’t that right?

John: Diluting a cow's maintenance requirements is what I'd call a systems-based issue. My main point is that if you already have a highly production-efficient system, simply adding more animals won't significantly boost your emissions efficiency.

To truly optimise feed utilisation and, in turn, emissions efficiency, you need a fundamentally sound farm system. A less-than-ideal system just can't utilise feed as effectively.

Let's say you have a very cow-dominant system, and you're getting very few sales compared to the energy those cows consume. You're likely to see higher emissions for those low sales. My point is that these kinds of systems are also poor at optimising feed use. But if you improve that system to get better feed utilisation, you might have similar total emissions, yet you'll produce far more kilograms of product, ultimately leading to improved emissions efficiency.

Bill: That makes sense. So really what you’re saying is that if you improve your system the benefits follow, whether that’s economic or emissions.

John: Right. What's interesting about the whole emissions conversation is that it feels a bit like the tail wagging the dog. My view is, if you get your production efficiency right, meaning your overall system and feed utilisation are on point, then emissions naturally become an output of that.

What I'm seeing, though, is the industry suddenly focusing heavily on measuring emissions first. Why not measure production efficiency instead? If your production efficiency is excellent, your business will likely have good emissions intensity. Conversely, if you're not getting much product for the feed you're putting in, your emissions intensity will probably be poor.

So, for me, the real goal is production efficiency. If we nail that, emissions data will follow. While most of the current tools measure emissions, there are some (like Ruminati) that can also provide a complete picture of your business's production efficiency, which then gives you your emissions intensity and net emissions figures. Efficiency seems like a more logical approach, however with big industry players and their incentives, it often feels like they're tackling it backwards.

Bill: Right, so thinking about getting that optimal production efficiency in your system, especially with the weather we've been seeing where it’s been really wet up north and dry down south, how do you reckon producers should handle that moving forward? Is it about being quicker to adapt, or more about having solid backup plans ready to go?

John: You mean in terms of being adaptive to seasonal requirements? Absolutely. If your core business is commodity livestock, you really need to be as responsive as possible. That can be difficult in places like the rangelands for example, where you might need a lot of capital to stock up quickly and then pull out just as fast because it's such a volatile environment. They often manage by keeping some breeding livestock and then using trading stock for the rest, which makes a lot of sense.

As you head east, the idea's the same, just on a different scale. We don't see the same 'all or nothing' swings because of more consistent seasons, but we still need to be responsive.

When it comes to emissions, being adaptive and using feed efficiently will likely improve your emissions intensity. Why? Because a good, responsive system, with the right genetics and weight gains, means you're getting more production from every kilogram of feed consumed. So, for me, it's about being adaptable and wisely using as much feed as your environment allows. For instance, around here [Wagga], we aim for about 50% feed utilisation. Out west in the rangelands, it might be 20-25%, and down south in Victoria, closer to 60%. High-intensity systems like dairy go even higher because they manage supplementary feed closely and monitor daily output, unlike broader systems where feedback is slower.

Bill Do you find there are big differences in mindset among farmers in various regions? Are some people more likely to be flexible when adapting to these kinds of changes?

John: Absolutely, mindset plays a huge role in how a farm business performs. Some people genuinely believe they need, say, five tons of dry matter on their farm every day, thinking it might build carbon or boost sustainability. I don't personally share that belief; I think feed is there to be used. In my experience, the more you use it, the better both your financial and sustainability outcomes tend to be.

It’s really to each their own at the end of the day, and I respect different beliefs, but these differing views certainly lead to variations in feed utilisation.

Other factors come into play too, like financial motivation. Some farmers are simply driven more by the bottom line, and some have to be due to higher debt. These psychological elements really shape the kind of farm system you run.

The point I want to make is, you can definitely have a highly productive system, and in fact, I believe a highly productive system will naturally be an emissions-efficient one. That's ultimately what the industry is looking for- businesses with strong emissions performance. Many operations are positioning themselves this way, often more for financial reasons right now than strictly emissions. But the two are fundamentally linked: if you boost productivity and profitability, you're more likely to be the kind of business that the value chain wants, delivering an emissions-efficient product.

- Stay Tuned for Part 3 -