Toowoomba, Australia
Toowoomba, Australia

Time filter

Source Type

Cottle D.J.,University of New England of Australia | Nolan J.V.,University of New England of Australia | Wiedemann S.G.,FSA Consulting
Animal Production Science | Year: 2011

In Australia, agriculture is responsible for ∼17% of total greenhouse gas emissions with ruminants being the largest single source. However, agriculture is likely to be shielded from the full impact of any future price on carbon. In this review, strategies for reducing ruminant methane output are considered in relation to rumen ecology and biochemistry, animal breeding and management options at an animal, farm, or national level. Nutritional management strategies have the greatest short-term impact. Methanogenic microorganisms remove H2 produced during fermentation of organic matter in the rumen and hind gut. Cost-effective ways to change the microbial ecology to reduce H2 production, to re-partition H2 into products other than methane, or to promote methanotrophic microbes with the ability to oxidise methane still need to be found. Methods of inhibiting methanogens include: use of antibiotics; promoting viruses/bacteriophages; use of feed additives such as fats and oils, or nitrate salts, or dicarboxylic acids; defaunation; and vaccination against methanogens. Methods of enhancing alternative H2 using microbial species include: inoculating with acetogenic species; feeding highly digestible feed components favouring 'propionate fermentations'; and modifying rumen conditions. Conditions that sustain acetogen populations in kangaroos and termites, for example, are poorly understood but might be extended to ruminants. Mitigation strategies are not in common use in extensive grazing systems but dietary management or use of growth promotants can reduce methane output per unit of product. New, natural compounds that reduce rumen methane output may yet be found. Smaller but more permanent benefits are possible using genetic approaches. The indirect selection criterion, residual feed intake, when measured on ad libitum grain diets, has limited relevance for grazing cattle. There are few published estimates of genetic parameters for feed intake and methane production. Methane-related single nucleotide polymorphisms have yet to be used commercially. As a breeding objective, the use of methane/kg product rather than methane/head is recommended. Indirect selection via feed intake may be more cost-effective than via direct measurement of methane emissions. Life cycle analyses indicate that intensification is likely to reduce total greenhouse gas output but emissions and sequestration from vegetation and soil need to be addressed. Bio-economic modelling suggests most mitigation options are currently not cost-effective. © CSIRO 2011.


Naylor T.A.,University of Wollongong | Wiedemann S.G.,FSA Consulting | Phillips F.A.,University of Wollongong | Warren B.,FSA Consulting | And 2 more authors.
Animal Production Science | Year: 2016

Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions are important environmental impacts from manure management in the layer-hen industry. The present study aimed to quantify emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3) from layer-hen manure stockpiles, and assess the use of an impermeable cover as an option to mitigate emissions. Gaseous emissions of N2O, CH4 and NH3 were measured using open-path FTIR spectroscopy and the emission strengths were inferred using a backward Lagrangian stochastic model. Emission factors were calculated from the relationship between gaseous emissions and stockpile inputs over a 32-day measurement period. Total NH3 emissions were 5.97 ± 0.399 kg/t (control) and 0.732 ± 0.116 kg/t (mitigation), representing an 88% reduction due to mitigation. Total CH4 emissions from the mitigation stockpile were 0.0832 ± 0.0198 kg/t. Methane emissions from the control and N2O emissions (control and mitigation) were below detection. The mass of each stockpile was 27820 kg (control) and 25120 kg (mitigation), with a surface area of ∼68 m2 and a volume of ∼19 m3. Total manure nitrogen (N) and volatile solids (VS) were 25.2 and 25.8 kg/t N, and 139 and 106 kg/t VS for the control and mitigation stockpiles respectively. Emission factors for NH3 were 24% and 3% of total N for the control and mitigation respectively. Methane from the mitigation stockpile had a CH4 conversion factor of 0.3%. The stockpile cover was found to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 74% compared with the control treatment, primarily via reduced NH3 and associated indirect N2O emissions. © CSIRO 2016.


Peters G.M.,University of New South Wales | Peters G.M.,Chalmers University of Technology | Wiedemann S.G.,FSA Consulting | Rowley H.V.,University of New South Wales | Tucker R.W.,Australian Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment | Year: 2010

Background and theory Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle inventory (LCI) practice needs to engage with the debate on water use in agriculture and industry. In the case of the red meat sector, some of the methodologies proposed or in use cannot easily inform the debate because either the results are not denominated in units that are meaningful to the public or the results do not reflect environmental outcomes. This study aims to solve these problems by classifying water use LCI data in the Australian red meat sector in a manner consistent with contemporary definitions of sustainability. We intend to quantify water that is removed from the course it would take in the absence of production or degraded in quality by the production system. Materials and methods The water used by three red meat supply systems in southern Australia was estimated using hybrid LCA. Detailed process data incorporating actual growth rates and productivity achieved in two calendar years were complemented by an input-output analysis of goods and services purchased by the properties. Detailed hydrological modelling using a standard agricultural software package was carried out using actual weather data. Results The model results demonstrated that the major hydrological flows in the system are rainfall and evapotranspiration. Transferred water flows and funds represent small components of the total water inputs to the agricultural enterprise, and the proportion of water degraded is also small relative to the water returned pure to the atmosphere. The results of this study indicate that water used to produce red meat in southern Australia is 18-540 L/kg HSCW, depending on the system, reference year and whether we focus on source or discharge characteristics. Interpretation Two key factors cause the considerable differences between the water use data presented by different authors: the treatment of rain and the feed production process. Including rain and evapotranspiration in LCI data used in simple environmental discussions is the main cause of disagreement between authors and is questionable from an environmental impact perspective because in the case of some native pastoral systems, these flows may not have changed substantially since the arrival of Europeans. Regarding the second factor, most of the grain and fodder crops used in the three red meat supply chains we studied in Australia are produced by dryland cropping. In other locations where surface water supplies are more readily available, such as the USA, irrigation of cattle fodder is more common. So whereas the treatment of rain is a methodological issue relevant to all studies relating water use to the production of red meat, the availability of irrigation water can be characterised as a fundamental difference between the infrastructure of red meat production systems in different locations. Conclusions Our results are consistent with other published work when the methodological diversity of their work and the approaches we have used are taken into account.We show that for media claims that tens or hundreds of thousands of litres of water are used in the production of red meat to be true, analysts have to ignore the environmental consequences of water use. Such results may nevertheless be interesting if the purpose of their calculations is to focus on calorific or financial gain rather than environmental optimisation. Recommendations and perspectives Our approach can be applied to other agricultural systems. We would not suggest that our results can be used as industry averages. In particular, we have not examined primary data for northern Australian beef production systems, where the majority of Australia's export beef is produced. © 2010 Springer-Verlag.


Wiedemann S.G.,FSA Consulting | Yan M.-J.,FSA Consulting | Henry B.K.,Queensland University of Technology | Murphy C.M.,FSA Consulting
Journal of Cleaner Production | Year: 2016

Australia is the largest supplier of fine apparel wool in the world, produced from diverse sheep production systems. To date, broad scale analyses of the environmental credentials of Australian wool have not used detailed farm-scale data, resulting in a knowledge gap regarding the performance of this product. This study is the first multiple impact life cycle assessment (LCA) investigation of three wool types, produced in three geographically defined regions of Australia: the high rainfall zone located in New South Wales (NSW HRZ) producing super-fine Merino wool, the Western Australian wheat-sheep zone (WA WSZ) producing fine Merino wool, and the southern pastoral zone (SA SPZ) of central South Australia, producing medium Merino wool. Inventory data were collected from both case study farms and regional datasets. Life cycle inventory and impact assessment methods were applied to determine resource use (energy and water use, and land occupation) and GHG emissions, including emissions and removal associated with land use (LU) and direct land use change (dLUC). Land occupation was divided into use of arable and non-arable land resources. A comparison of biophysical allocation and system expansion methods for handling co-production of greasy wool and live weight (for meat) was included. Based on the regional analysis results, GHG emissions (excluding LU and dLUC) were 20.1 ± 3.1 (WA WSZ, mean ± 2 S.D) to 21.3 ± 3.4 kg CO2-e/kg wool in the NSW HRZ, with no significant difference between regions or wool type. Accounting for LU and dLUC emissions and removals resulted in either very modest increases in emissions (0.3%) or reduced net emissions by 0-11% depending on pasture management and revegetation activities, though a higher degree of uncertainty was observed in these results. Fossil fuel energy demand ranged from 12.5 ± 4.1 in the SA SPZ to 22.5 ± 6.2 MJ/kg wool (WA WSZ) in response to differences in grazing intensity. Fresh water consumption ranged from 204.3 ± 59.1 in the NSW HRZ to 393.7 ± 123.8 L/kg wool in the WA WSZ, with differences primarily relating to climate. Stress-weighted water use ranged from 11.0 ± 3.0 (SA SPZ) to 74.6 ± 119.5 L H2O-e/kg wool (NSW HRZ) and followed an opposite trend to water consumption in response to the different levels of water stress across the regions. Non-arable grazing land was found to range from 55% to almost 100% of total land occupation. Different methods for handling co-production of greasy wool and live weight changed estimated total GHG emissions by a factor of three, highlighting the sensitivity to this methodological choice and the significance of meat production in the wool supply chain. The results presented improve the understanding of environmental impacts and resource use in these wool production regions as a basis for more detailed full supply chain analysis. © 2016 The Authors.


Wiedemann S.G.,FSA Consulting | Henry B.K.,Queensland University of Technology | McGahan E.J.,FSA Consulting | Grant T.,Life Cycle Strategies | And 2 more authors.
Agricultural Systems | Year: 2015

Over the past three decades major changes have occurred in Australia's beef industry, affecting productivity and potentially the amount of resources used and environmental impacts from production. Using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach with a 'cradle-to-farm gate' boundary the changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity and key resource use efficiency factors (water use, fossil fuel energy demand and land occupation) are reported for the 30 years from 1981 to 2010, for the Australian beef industry. The analysis showed that over the three decades since 1981 there has been a decrease in GHG emission intensity (excluding land use change emissions) of 14% from 15.3 to 13.1 kg CO2-e/kg liveweight (LW). The improvement was largely due to efficiency gains through heavier slaughter weights, increases in growth rates in grass-fed cattle, improved survival rates and greater numbers of cattle being finished on grain. However, the increase in supplement and grain use on farms, and the increase in feedlot finishing, resulted in a twofold increase in fossil fuel energy demand for beef production over the same time. Fresh water consumption for beef production dropped to almost a third from 1465 L/kg LW in 1981 to 515 L/kg LW in 2010. Three contributing factors for this dramatic reduction in water use were: (i)an increase in the competitive demand for irrigation water, resulting in a transfer away from pasture for cattle to higher value industries such as horticulture, (ii) an initiative to cap free flowing artesian bores in the rangelands, and (iii) an overall decline in water available for agriculture compared to industrial and domestic uses. While there was higher uncertainty relating to estimates of land occupation and emissions from land use (LU) and direct land use change (dLUC), an inventory of land occupation indicated a decline in non-arable land occupation of about 19%, but a sevenfold increase in land occupation for feed production, albeit from a low base in 1981. GHG emissions associated with LU and dLUC for grazing were estimated to have declined by around 42% since 1981, due largely to legislated restrictions on broad-scale deforestation which were introduced progressively between 1996 and 2006. This paper discusses the prospects and challenges for further gains in resource use efficiency and reductions in greenhouse gas intensity for Australian beef production. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.


Wiedemann S.G.,FSA Consulting | Ledgard S.F.,Agresearch Ltd. | Henry B.K.,Queensland University of Technology | Yan M.-J.,FSA Consulting | And 2 more authors.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment | Year: 2015

Purpose: Methodology of co-product handling is a critical determinant of calculated resource use and environmental emissions per kilogram (kg) product but has not been examined in detail for different sheep production systems. This paper investigates alternative approaches for handling co-production of wool and live weight (LW, for meat) from dual purpose sheep systems to the farm-gate. Methods: Seven methods were applied; three biophysical allocation (BA) methods based on protein requirements and partitioning of digested protein, protein mass allocation (PMA), economic allocation (EA) and two system expansion (SE) methods. Effects on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fossil energy demand and land occupation (classified according to suitability for arable use) were assessed using four contrasting case study (CS) farm systems. A UK upland farm (CS 1) and a New Zealand hill farm (CS 2) were selected to represent systems focused on lamb and coarse-textured wool for interior textiles. Two Australian Merino sheep farms (CS 3, CS 4) were selected to represent systems focused on medium to superfine garment wool, and lamb. Results and discussion: Total GHG emissions per kilogram total products (i.e. wool + LW) were similar across CS farms. However, results were highly sensitive to the method of co-product handling. GHG emissions based on BA of wool protein to wool resulted in 10–12 kg CO2-e/kg wool (across all CS farms), whereas it increased to 24–38 kg CO2-e/kg wool when BA included a proportion of sheep maintenance requirements. Results for allocation% generated using EA varied widely from 4 % (CS 1) to 52 % (CS 4). SE using beef as a substitution for sheep meat gave the lowest, and often negative, GHG emissions from wool production. Different methods were found to re-order the impacts across the four case studies in some instances. A similar overall pattern was observed for the effects of co-product handling method on other impact categories for three of the four farms. Conclusions: BA based on protein partitioning between sheep wool and LW is recommended for attributional studies with the PMA method being an easily applied proxy for the more detailed BA methods. Sensitivity analysis using SE is recommended to understand the implications of system change. Sensitivity analysis using SE is recommended to investigate implications of choosing alternative products or systems, and to evaluate system change strategies in which case consequential modelling is appropriate. To avoid risks of burden shifting when allocation methods are applied, results should be presented for both wool and LW. © 2015, The Author(s).


Peters G.M.,University of New South Wales | Wiedemann S.,FSA Consulting | Rowley H.V.,University of New South Wales | Tucker R.,University of New South Wales | And 2 more authors.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment | Year: 2011

Purpose This paper describes part of the first detailed environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of Australian red meat (beef and sheep meat) production. The study was intended to assist the methodological development of life cycle impact assessment by examining the feasibility of new indicators for natural resource management (NRM) issues relevant to soil management in agricultural LCA. This paper is intended to describe the NRM indicators directly related to agricultural soil chemistry. Materials and methods Three nutrient management indicators- nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) balances-were estimated on the basis of 1 kg of hot standard carcass weight (HSCW) for three grazing properties in Australia. We also examined a soil acidification indicator based on the effects of agricultural practices. Results and discussion The N balance for the grazing properties varied from a loss of 28 g N/kg HSCW to an accumulation of 170 g N/kg HSCW. For comparison, the N content of cattle is about 24 g/kg liveweight. The main contributors to these changes were the growth of N-fixing pastures (or lack thereof) and the application of fertilisers. The P and the K balances showed similar results, varying from a 3.9-g loss to a 19-g accumulation of P and a 4-g loss to a 95-g accumulation of K per kilogram HSCW. Decisions about pasture management were also reflected in the results of the soil acidification indicator. We also identified that soil erosion at the grazing properties is a significant component of nutrient losses. Conclusions The results suggest that reducing the leaching of soil N might be the best way to balance the N budget without causing acidification. The NRM indicators developed can be benchmarked against other production systems as the application of these indicators progresses. © 2011 Springer-Verlag.


Peters G.M.,University of New South Wales | Rowley H.V.,University of New South Wales | Wiedemann S.,FSA Consulting | Tucker R.,FSA Consulting | And 2 more authors.
Environmental Science and Technology | Year: 2010

Greenhouse gas emissions from beef production are a significant part of Australia's total contribution to climate change. For the first time an environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) hybridizing detailed on-site process modeling and input-output analysis is used to describe Australian red meat production. In this paper we report the carbon footprint and total energy consumption of three supply chains in three different regions in Australia over two years. The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy use data are compared to those from international studies on red meat production, and the Australian results are either average or below average. The increasing proportion of lot-fed beef in Australia is favorable, since this production system generates lower total GH Gemissions than grass-fed production; the additional effort in producing and transporting feeds is effectively offset by the increased efficiency of meat production in feedlots. In addition to these two common LCA indicators, in this paper we also quantify solid waste generation and a soil erosion indicator on a common basis. © 2010 American Chemical Society.


Wiedemann S.G.,FSA Consulting | Yan M.-J.,FSA Consulting | Murphy C.M.,FSA Consulting
Animal Production Science | Year: 2016

This study conducted a life cycle assessment (LCA) investigating energy, land occupation, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fresh water consumption and stress-weighted water use from production of export lamb in the major production regions of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The study used data from regional datasets and case study farms, and applied new methods for assessing water use using detailed farm water balances and water stress weighting. Land occupation was assessed with reference to the proportion of arable and non-arable land and allocation of liveweight (LW) and greasy wool was handled using a protein mass method. Fossil fuel energy demand ranged from 2.5 to 7.0 MJ/kg LW, fresh water consumption from 58.1 to 238.9 L/kg LW, stress-weighted water use from 2.9 to 137.8 L H2O-e/kg LW and crop land occupation from 0.2 to 2.0 m2/kg LW. Fossil fuel energy demand was dominated by on-farm energy demand, and differed between regions and datasets in response to production intensity and the use of purchased inputs such as fertiliser. Regional fresh water consumption was dominated by irrigation water use and losses from farm water supply, with smaller contributions from livestock drinking water. GHG emissions ranged from 6.1 to 7.3 kg CO2-e/kg LW and additional removals or emissions from land use (due to cultivation and fertilisation) and direct land-use change (due to deforestation over previous 20 years) were found to be modest, contributing between -1.6 and 0.3 kg CO2-e/kg LW for different scenarios assessing soil carbon flux. Excluding land use and direct land-use change, enteric CH4 contributed 83-89% of emissions, suggesting that emissions intensity can be reduced by focussing on flock production efficiency. Resource use and emissions were similar for export lamb production in the major production states of Australia, and GHG emissions were similar to other major global lamb producers. The results show impacts from lamb production on competitive resources to be low, as lamb production systems predominantly utilised non-arable land unsuited to alternative food production systems that rely on crop production, and water from regions with low water stress. © CSIRO 2016.


Wiedemann S.G.,FSA Consulting | McGahan E.J.,FSA Consulting | Murphy C.M.,FSA Consulting
Animal Production Science | Year: 2016

Agricultural industries are under increasing pressure to measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the supply chain. The Australian pork industry has established proactive goals to improve greenhouse-gas (GHG) performance across the industry, but while productivity indicators are benchmarked by industry, similar data have not previously been collected to determine supply chain GHG emissions. To assess total GHG emissions from Australian pork production, the present study conducted a life-cycle assessment of six case study supply chains and the national herd for the year 2010. The study aimed to determine total GHG emissions and hotspots, and to determine the mitigation potential from alternative manure treatment systems. Two functional units were used: 1 kg of pork liveweight (LW) at the farm gate, and 1 kg of wholesale pork (chilled, bone-in) ready for packaging and distribution. Mean GHG emissions from the case study supply chains ranged from 2.1 to 4.5 kg CO2-e/kg LW (excluding land-use (LU) and direct land use-change (dLUC) emissions). Emissions were lowest from the piggeries that housed grower-finisher pigs on deep litter and highest from pigs housed in conventional systems with uncovered anaerobic effluent ponds. Mean contribution from methane from effluent treatment was 64% of total GHG at the conventional piggeries. Nitrous oxide arose from both grain production and manure management, comprising 7-33% of the total emissions. The GHG emissions for the national herd were 3.6 kg CO2-e/kg LW, with the largest determining factor on total emissions being the relative proportion of pigs managed with high or low emission manure management systems. Emissions from LU and dLUC sources ranged from 0.08 to 0.7 kg CO2-e/kg LW for the case study farms, with differences associated with the inclusion rate of imported soybean meal in the ration and feed-conversion ratio. GHG intensity (excluding LU, dLUC) from the national herd was 6.36 ± 1.03 kg CO2-e/kg wholesale pork, with the emission profile dominated by methane from manure management (50%), followed by feed production (27%) and then meat processing (8%). Inclusion of LU and dLUC emissions had a minor effect on the emission profile. Scenarios testing showed that biogas capture from anaerobic digestion with combined heat and power generation resulted in a 31-64% reduction in GHG emissions. Finishing pigs on deep litter as preferred to conventional housing resulted in 38% lower GHG emissions than conventional finishing. © CSIRO 2016.

Loading FSA Consulting collaborators
Loading FSA Consulting collaborators