Unpacking Emissions Efficiency: A Farmer-to-Expert Discussion (Part 3)

In Part 3 of this ongoing conversation, Bill Findlay and John Francis return to the question many producers are asking: how do I actually get started with emissions reporting, and what do I do with the data once I have it?

John argues that emissions data, used wisely, can be a powerful lens for understanding your whole business system. From improving feed efficiency and animal performance to questioning whether your current enterprise fits your landscape, this discussion highlights how small changes can lead to big improvements in emissions intensity and overall profitability.

For producers curious about how to turn reporting into results, this is a practical, honest look at what to prioritise- and why system thinking is key to both economic and environmental success.

Bill: As you know, I run quite a few workshops for farmers with Ruminati, and a common question I get is: "When's the best time to start emissions reporting?" I certainly have my own strong opinion on that. What's your advice for them?

John: I'd say the best time to start is now. I just can't see any reason you wouldn't.

Engaging with emissions reporting tools is really about investing in your own learning. You're essentially moving up that 'data, information, knowledge, wisdom' pyramid. It gives you crucial information and insights that you can use to refine your operations.

Here's how it helps: You can jump into the tool, tweak one variable, and immediately see the impact on your bottom line. For instance, does using urea really make a difference? If you apply urea but don't adjust your stocking rate, I can guarantee you won't see a good outcome. Even if you do increase stocking rates, the emissions intensity might only be marginally better, or even worse.

What if you consider a bigger system change? You can test that too. By altering things like calving dates, turn-off times, or aiming for heavier calves, even just on paper or in the tool, you start to connect how these changes affect your emissions. If you're clever about linking your current system to what an improved one could look like, you'll actually see the real-world impact. And it's not just about emissions; by adding the economics, you'll also understand the financial implications.

Bill: So, is it fair to say that understanding your emissions is really just one piece of the puzzle for improving your overall farm business management?

John: It's definitely a piece of the puzzle, not the whole picture. I see it as a way to gain more insight into your entire business, and honestly, I don't see any downside to that. The only way it could be negative is if it pulled you away from something more crucial, and I just don't think that's the case.

I firmly believe everyone should make time for learning about emissions, because as a farmer it’s important for your business growth. And while your workshops are fantastic for getting started, the learning shouldn't stop there. That's just the beginning. The real breakthroughs happen when people take what they've learned in the workshop, go home, and actively apply it, running their own scenarios. Your workshops shorten the learning curve, making that hard work more efficient. But the true power comes when you dedicate the time to explore those 'what if' situations you discuss, but don't have time to fully delve into during the workshop itself. That's where the real value is.

Bill: Okay, let's talk practicalities. It's always tough to define the "average" farmer, but if you were a typical farmer in the Riverina, and you wanted to take three key steps in this area, what would they be? Obviously, the first would be to understand your current emissions footprint. But what about the next two practical actions a farmer could take on their property? What would you usually suggest?

John: That's a great question. I think your first step is everything, because it gives you that crucial information.

Now, for the next two steps, it's tough to give a one-size-fits-all answer, as it really depends on the individual business. However, based on our benchmarking data, I'd say that poor feed utilisation often stems from a system where feed supply and demand aren't aligned. This means you're getting a poor conversion of feed consumed into product, whether that's wool, lamb, or beef.

So, my top recommendation would be to examine your system and realign feed supply with demand. This will lead to much better feed utilisation. What's the impact on emissions? While your overall net emissions might potentially go up, you'll produce significantly more kilos of product, thereby driving down your emissions intensity.

And that's okay, because what the industry and consumers are telling us they want is lower emissions intensity – they want to know how many kilograms of CO2 are linked to each kilo of steak or cereal they buy. You can't improve that intensity by simply trying to reduce total emissions; it comes from producing more with similar emissions. So, if that's what the market demands, then I say produce as much as makes sense for your resources, aiming for high levels of feed utilisation. Luckily, this aligns perfectly with boosting productivity and profitability in commodity livestock production.

Bill: You mentioned grains earlier, is it any different for them?

John: I haven't focused as much on grains because, compared to livestock, they're generally lower emitters. My energy has been spent more in the livestock space where emissions, while moderate overall, are higher due to methane, relatively speaking.

For grain producers, a key challenge is their reliance on inorganic, or fertiliser nitrogen. That's why things like rotations and having diversity in those rotations are so important, because effectively it's just replacing that fertiliser nitrogen with naturally occurring nitrogen fixed by legumes.

Bill: So, what would be the next step after refining your overall farm system?

John: That's a good question. I guess I would then look at genetics, feed base, and average daily gain– essentially, how to drive more kilos out of the same number of livestock. This means getting them to either a higher weight in the same period or getting them off earlier at the same weight, or whatever that target weight is. This involves things like greater intensity of legume pasture in my system, or certain specific pasture types. It could even come from lime use, which, of course, will increase CO2 emissions during application, but hopefully that's more than offset by the benefit of the additional legume that's in the system from applying the lime and so on. Some of these things are a little bit complex, but there'd be two main areas. So, systems would be my number one, and then feed base, genetics, anything that impacts average daily gain, would probably be my next go-to.

Bill Findlay: When considering all of this, another really important question comes to mind: Are you even producing the right product for your environment? For example, are you running a beef operation when perhaps sheep would be a better fit? You look at some properties and can't help but wonder if they're doing what makes the most sense.

John Francis: You're absolutely right. My initial thought is that you've already made those fundamental decisions about your enterprise. But, as they say, assumptions can lead us astray, so I shouldn't make them! You bring up a really valid point: should you be running a beef operation on shallow, high-rainfall, highly erosive soils where you'll struggle to get weight on finishing or even trading animals? Logically, I'd say no, that's not the right fit.

I actually lump that kind of decision into the broader idea of systems-based thinking. When I talk about getting your system right, I mean things like time of joining, calving, turn-off, and ensuring the enterprise suits your feed and resource base.

Sometimes, you look at certain farm systems, and while the operators might have their reasons, from a productivity or profitability perspective, they just don't make sense. But then again, that often comes down to individual beliefs. Some people might not prioritise profitability; they might just want to farm in the easiest way possible. And if that's the goal, then there's often a trade-off between profitability and ease of management.

Bill: I suspect part of the issue is that pursuing high profitability and productivity in livestock isn't easy – and I say that from experience!

John: Right. It's incredibly demanding and challenging, and mentally it can be really stressful. So, I get that it's not for everyone. However, this path can also be very rewarding from an emissions intensity perspective. Prime cattle, prime pasture or prime profits - which one are you going to choose? Why do you have to choose? Because there is always a compromise. You can opt for an easier path, one without high stocking rates or intensive feed utilisation, but that likely won't lead to a great outcome for your emissions intensity.

Bill: Excellent. Well, that's a fantastic rundown. Thank you very much, John.

John: No worries. Great to have an opportunity to sit down with you. Thanks for having me.