Cited by 30Sustainable Agricultural Systems AnalysisAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics

Offsets required to reduce the carbon balance of sheep and beef farms through carbon sequestration in trees and soils.

Doran-Browne, Natalie, Wootton, Mark, Taylor, Chris, Eckard, Richard·2018·Animal Production Science

Abstract

The sustainability of farming is important to ensure that natural resources remain available into the future. Ruminant livestock production generates more greenhouse gas emissions than other types of agricultural production and most livestock mitigation options to date have a modest greenhouse gas reduction potential ( 20 DSE/ha) has yet to be studied in Australia. The challenge is to sequester enough carbon to offset the higher level of emissions that these higher stocked farms produce. This study calculated the carbon balance of wool, prime lamb and beef enterprises using a range of stocking rates (6–22 DSE/ha) and levels of tree cover in two agroecological zones. Emissions from livestock, energy and transport were offset by the carbon sequestered in trees and soils. Additionally, the carbon balance was calculated of a case study, Jigsaw Farms, an intensive sheep and beef farm in south-eastern Australia. The methods used to calculate emissions and carbon stocks were from the Australian National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. The majority of stocking rates were carbon positive over a 25-year period when 20% of the sheep or beef enterprises were covered with trees. This study demonstrated that substantial reductions can be made in greenhouse gas emissions through the use of carbon sequestration, particularly in trees. The results showed that from 2000 to 2014 Jigsaw Farms reduced its emissions by 48% by sequestering carbon in trees and soil. The analysis of different stocking rate…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/an16438

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Jigsaw Farms was net zero between 2010 and 2017.

    “The study by Doran-Browne et al. (2018), and sequestration data from this study estimate that Jigsaw Farms was net zero between 2010 and 2017 (shaded in Table 1).”

    From Can soil and tree carbon sequestration maintain zero net emissions grazing? (2025) · cites this paper as Doran-Browne et al. 2018

  • A previous assessment in 2018 estimated that Hensley Park achieved zero net emissions between 2010 and 2014.

    “A previous assessment in 2018 estimated that the Hensley Park property achieved zero net emissions between 2010 and 2014 (Doran-Browne et al. 2018).”

    From Can soil and tree carbon sequestration maintain zero net emissions grazing? (2025) · cites this paper as Doran-Browne et al. 2018

  • The previous carbon assessment (Doran-Browne et al. 2018) for the property was for the Hensley park property only.

    “The previous carbon assessment (Doran-Browne et al. 2018) for the property was for the Hensley park property only.”

    From Can soil and tree carbon sequestration maintain zero net emissions grazing? (2025) · cites this paper as Doran-Browne et al. 2018

  • The emissions from the enterprise and the emissions intensity of beef, sheep meat and wool were calculated using the sheep and beef greenhouse accounting framework tool (SB-GAFv2.3).

    “The emissions from the enterprise and the emissions intensity of beef, sheep meat and wool were calculated using the sheep and beef greenhouse accounting framework tool (SB-GAFv2.3)(Doran-Browne et al. 2018).”

    From Can soil and tree carbon sequestration maintain zero net emissions grazing? (2025) · cites this paper as Doran-Browne et al. 2018

  • On average, livestock emissions and sequestration were respectively 2.6 and 1.6 times lower in Doran-Browne et al. (2018) than calculated in the current assessment.

    “A comparison indicates that on average, livestock emissions and sequestration were respectively 2.6 and 1.6 times lower in Doran-Browne et al. (2018), than calculated in the current assessment (Table 1).”

    From Can soil and tree carbon sequestration maintain zero net emissions grazing? (2025) · cites this paper as Doran-Browne et al. 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Doran-Browne, N., Wootton, M., Taylor, C., & Eckard, R.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • BJigsaw Farms, 1874 Hensley Park Road, Hensley Park, Vic. 3301, Australia.
Corresponding author
Doran-Browne, Natalie
Venue
Animal Production Science
Published
2017-05-16
Volume
58
Issue
9
Pages
1648-1655
ISSN
  • 1836-0939 (ISSN-L)
  • 1836-5787
OpenAlex
W2614265720
Cited by
30
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Animal Production Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
Meat and Livestock Australia
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Keywords
carbon balance, carbon offsetting, carbon sequestration, sheep farming, beef production, stocking rate, tree cover, soil carbon, greenhouse gas emissions, ruminant livestock, wool, agro-ecological zones

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review