Regenerative grazing study reveals trade-offs for sheep farmers

A new Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture (TIA) study has found that while regenerative agriculture practices can improve soil health and reduce emissions on sheep farms, farmers often face trade-offs between environmental and economic goals.

The article – Regenerative agriculture improves productivity and profitability while reducing greenhouse gas emissions on Australian sheep farms has been published in prestigious online journal, Nature Food.

The study is a collaboration between TIA and Cranfield University in the United Kingdom. Over two years, the project closely examined regenerative agriculture practices on Australian sheep farms and the impact on boosting farm productivity and profit, improvements to soil carbon, and lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

Regenerative agriculture is a broad philosophy that can include several practices, such as high stocking rates with livestock animals regularly rotated across paddocks, increasing plant and animal biodiversity, planting trees in grazing areas, reducing soil disturbance and avoiding use of synthetic fertilisers.

“In this study, we looked at four farms across various rainfall regions within Australia to understand the impact of different types of pasture species, existing soil carbon stocks, and rotational grazing practices,” Professor Matthew Harrison, Lead for Climate Resilience at TIA, said.

“Overall, we found there are trade-offs between economic and environmental goals. The grazing methods that are best for the environment and reduce emissions are not always the most profitable.”

Other studies have shown that livestock is responsible for 70 per cent of all methane emissions derived from Australian agriculture.

“Farmers need to be clear about their goals when choosing grazing systems - whether they want to focus on profit, environmental benefits, or a balance of both,” Professor Harrison said.

“It comes down to the individual farmer and how they rationalise their priorities. Is it building soil carbon? Is it animal welfare? Is it profitability? is it practicality? Is it total productivity?

“Such priorities will ultimately determine which management practices should be imposed.”

Professor Harrison said that while low intensity grazing with short rest periods tended to make farms more profitable, regenerative grazing, where high intensity grazing is conducted for a very short period and paddocks are spelled for an extended duration, led to more pasture growth, more soil carbon storage, and lower emissions.

Regenerative grazing also performed better when emissions, profit, and productivity were collectively considered.

“Some farmers increase their soil carbon to reduce emissions. But we found that increased methane emissions by having more animals on their land offset the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions associated with improved soil carbon,” Professor Harrison said.

The project was funded by Australian Wool Innovation.

Co-authors included Albert Muleke, Karen Christie-Whitehead, Michelle Cain, Ke Liu, Paul Burgess, Catherine Wiltshire and Georgios Pexas.