THE Peter Schroder Memorial Lecture at this year’s Sheepvention was attended, virtually to capacity, by about 100 farmers and others interested in what Melbourne University’s Professor Richard Eckard had to say about agriculture, greenhouse gas emissions, and the ongoing quest to achieve the target of a carbon-neutral or “net-zero” economy.

The lecture was mediated by Penshurst farmer, Jonathan Jenkin with a summing up by Rabobank senior analyst, Angus Gidley-Baird.

With a talk entitled, ‘Carbon Neutral Livestock Production – It’s a Challenge, Let’s Face It!’, the professor, who has been acknowledged as one of the world’s leading experts on the subject, addressed the topic by first asking, “Who sets the targets?” and secondly, “How are we going to get there?”

Prof. Eckard spoke of a plethora of bodies concerned with demanding, monitoring, verifying, and reporting on greenhouse gas (GHG) targets and emissions from the agricultural sector.

As to how agriculture might respond, he forewarned the audience that the matter is confusing, going on to explain what are called Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.

Scope 1 emissions are those made directly on-farm from, say, burning diesel.

Scope 2 emissions are those from energy use on-farm where the emissions source is off-site; essentially, this is mains electricity.

Scope 3 is the tricky one, being emissions from the farm business’s supply chains both upstream (e.g. fertiliser manufacturers) and downstream (e.g. supermarkets).

Scope 3 emissions are controversial because they are extraordinarily difficult to identify and measure.

The three types of emissions are added up, 1+2+3, to give the carbon “footprint” of the farm business.

This is expressed in units of “carbon dioxide equivalent,” its acronym being CO2e.

This unit is used to express the impact of different greenhouse gases in terms of the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that would have the same global warming potential (GWP) over a specified time horizon, typically 100 years.

Thus, a farm business finds itself enmeshed with both up and downstream business networks, which are, in turn, caught up in their own Scope 3 maze.

Professor Eckard was clear about there being controversy in this area.

He also pointed out that different countries have different emissions targets.

As far as buyers of agricultural products are concerned, they can, for the most part, only assess a particular commodity, such as wheat, by its average carbon footprint per unit, i.e. tonne or kilogram.

Thus, a farmer who is a very low emitter may have their wheat or wool assessed at an average rate rather than one specific to that particular producer.

This can, in certain cases, be avoided by farmers selling a branded product such as carbon-neutral beef or lamb.

Prof. Eckard went on to explain the concept of Carbon Credits (CCs), which are purchased by emitters.

He pointed out that large corporations purchase carbon credits so that they can continue operating in the same manner, that is, by “offsetting ... they are buying their way out of trouble.”

The professor also said that carbon credits under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011, they were meant to be “…the last line of defence,” rather than a standard approach.

He went on to say that an alternative to this is carbon “insetting.”

Carbon insetting is a sustainability strategy within a supply chain (both upstream and downstream) where a company invests in carbon reduction or sequestration projects directly related to its own supply chain operations.

Unlike carbon offsetting, which involves compensating for emissions by investing in unrelated projects outside the farm’s value chain, insetting focuses on generating environmental benefits within its own network of suppliers and stakeholders.

Although there are difficulties with its measuring and monitoring, insetting has the advantage of being localised and therefore more manageable.

Going further into how emissions reduction could be achieved, Prof. Eckard pointed out that on-farm efficiencies can be direct contributors to increased productivity.

As examples, he cited improvements to herd and flock health, increased growth rates, and enhanced genetics.

He went on to point out that ruminant methane emissions could not be entirely eliminated but could be reduced by feed additives such as seaweed and commercially available products such as Boveair.

With regards to specific on-farm sequestration strategies, Prof. Eckard spoke of both tree and soil carbon.

He stressed that in both cases, the law of diminishing returns applied.

With trees, growth rates started to decline, while with soil carbon, there were ceilings to the amount of carbon that could be stored, on top of which, rainfall had a direct impact on the amount of carbon sequestered, stored, or released.

In this regard, Prof. Eckard showed graphs illustrating how carbon storage levels on some local farms had improved greatly at the outset before plateauing.

His overriding message was to “… go for the best practice,” adding that in Australia, some “… may regret pursuing soil and tree carbon credits.”

Prof. Eckard expressed some doubts regarding the future of carbon credits, saying that he thought that by approximately 2030, biodiversity offsets rather than carbon credits would be the main focus of rural environmental policy.

In summary, one might say that Prof. Eckard provided balanced expert opinions with a science-based and common-sense approach to an area of policy that is not only extraordinarily complex but also subject to continuing change and development.

An unspoken suggestion was that while a net-zero grazing industry may be an ideal, it is the continuing focus on best practices which is imperative.