CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSustainable Agricultural Systems AnalysisPasture and Agricultural Systems

Can soil and tree carbon sequestration maintain zero net emissions grazing?

Open access
Macdonald, A., Court, J., Meyer, R., Wootton, M., Kantor, E., Keenan, R., Stewart, H., Eckard, R.·2025·Animal Production Science
DOI 10.1071/an24346
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Context: Goals set by countries and corporate entities in response to the Paris climate agreement (COP21) have put a focus on livestock producers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe). However, methods to reduce emissions in livestock enterprises are limited. One option to reduce the balance of GHGe produced on farms is to sequester carbon in soils and trees within the farm boundary. Aims: To assess the effectiveness of carbon sequestration in maintaining net zero emissions on a grazing enterprise (Jigsaw Farms). A previous study indicated that a single property in this enterprise (Hensley Park) achieved net zero status in 2014. Methods: Net emissions produced by the enterprise across two properties (Melville Forrest and Hensley Park) were estimated by calculating on-farm and pre-farm emissions, using the IPCC-approved method, SB-GAFv2.3, FullCAM, and soil data provided by Jigsaw Farms. Emissions and vegetation sequestration results were validated through field data and farm records. Key results: From 2010 to 2014, Jigsaw Farm’s Hensley Park property sequestered more carbon in trees and soils than the equivalent GHGe produced. Trees, on average, provided 89% of the sequestration and soils provided 11%. After this, an increase in GHGe from higher animal numbers and declining sequestration rates meant the enterprise was no longer net zero. Emissions in 2021 were 10,870 t carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-e), while vegetation sequestered 6704 t CO2-e. Data was insufficient to assess soil carbon sequestration. Although net emissions increased, the emissions intensity of products was halved due to sequestration. Conclusions: Although increased woody vegetation on-farm enabled achievement of net zero emissions, maintaining this position using only sequestration has proven challenging. Other on-farm benefits of trees and shrubs, such as shade and shelter for animals from climatic extremes, conservation and aesthetic benefits, are important in decisions to integrate trees. Implications: The level of emission reduction achieved by trees can be increased, and the period of emissions reduction extended, by expanding tree plantings, staging plantings over time, using faster-growing species or, in the longer term, harvesting trees for timber and accounting for carbon stored in long-lived products. However, relying on sequestration alone cannot indefinitely meet net zero emission objectives.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This case study of Jigsaw Farms found that tree and soil carbon sequestration made the grazing enterprise net zero for a limited period, but rising emissions and declining sequestration rates meant it was no longer net zero by 2021. In 2021, gross emissions were 10,870 t CO₂-e and tree sequestration was 6,704 t CO₂-e, leaving net emissions of 4,166 t CO₂-e; soil carbon could not be included.

Key findings

  • From 2010 to 2014, Hensley Park sequestered more carbon in trees and soils than the equivalent GHGe produced; trees provided 89% of sequestration on average and soils 11%.
  • In 2021, Jigsaw Farms gross emissions were 10,870 t CO₂-e (9,830 t CO₂-e Scope 1 and 2; 1,040 t CO₂-e Scope 3), tree sequestration was 6,704 t CO₂-e, and net emissions were 4,166 t CO₂-e; trees offset 61.7% of total emissions. Soil data were insufficient to assess soil carbon sequestration.
  • Sequestration reduced emissions intensity: without sequestration, beef was 11.6 kg CO₂-e/kg liveweight, sheep 8.5 kg CO₂-e/kg liveweight, and wool 30.8 kg CO₂-e/kg greasy wool; with sequestration, these fell to 3.5, 3.4, and 12.3, respectively. Using a 10-year running mean, trees offset 77% of gross emissions and intensities were 2.5, 1.9, and 7.6.
  • The enterprise was estimated to be net zero between 2010 and 2017; if 2021 emissions had applied earlier, the net zero period would have been only 1–2 years. Annual tree sequestration peaked at -11,434 t CO₂-e in 2011 and declined thereafter.

Methods

  • Case study of Jigsaw Farms in southwest Victoria, comprising Hensley Park (2,133.1 ha) and Melville Forest (1,284.4 ha), a prime lamb, premium wool, and cattle enterprise; the net greenhouse gas balance was calculated for the 2021 calendar year.
  • Emissions were estimated with SB-GAFv2.3 using IPCC-approved NGGI methods for Scope 1 and 2 and Ecoinvent factors for pre-farm Scope 3 within a pre-farm to farm-gate LCA boundary; GrassGro and farm records supplied activity data; GWP values were 28 for CH₄ and 265 for N₂O. Tree sequestration used FullCAM (2020 Public Release) validated and recalibrated with field measurements: 13 agroforestry sites in August 2022 and 11 permanent revegetation sites in April 2023, using plots/transects and allometric models. Soil carbon came from farm records at 0–10 cm sampled between 2008 and 2018 and again in 2021, but was not included because statistical analysis showed no obvious trend (P = 0.42).
  • The net greenhouse gas balance was calculated as the sum of all Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions minus the annual change in tree carbon sequestered from agroforestry and permanent revegetation for 2021.

Limitations

  • Stated: soil carbon data were insufficient to determine annual soil carbon sequestration or whether soil carbon had reached a steady state; no obvious trend was found (P = 0.42), and it could not be concluded whether changes were due to farm management or natural climate variability. Including soil carbon would require sampling at a minimum depth of 30 cm and showing a statistically significant change.
  • Stated: emissions were calculated for the 2021 calendar year only; the previous assessment covered only Hensley Park, and the authors emphasise the need to include the entire business entity. Climate variability affects sequestration, FullCAM was designed for national or state-scale inventory reporting and its local application is limited, and harvesting agroforestry trees was not incorporated, with allocation of carbon credit between grower, processor, and user unresolved.
  • Evident: soil was sampled at 0–10 cm rather than the stated 30 cm minimum; tree sequestration estimates depend on model recalibration and field plots; single-year emissions may not represent interannual variability; the farm owners are authors, though the paper states they had no editor-level access to data, analysis, or manuscript.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/an24346

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

5 of 38 cited sources checked · 3 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Interpretationcitation

    The period of net zero emissions could have been extended by planting more of the area to agroforestry and longer-lived eucalypt trees with faster growth and higher biomass potential than the revegetation areas planted primarily for biodiversity.

    “The period of net zero emissions could have been extended by planting more of the area to agroforestry and longer-lived eucalypt trees with faster growth and higher biomass potential than the revegetation areas planted primarily for biodiversity (Zomer et al. 2022).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zomer et al. 2022 source

      The Discussion (page not provided) says that more tree cover on agricultural land can increase carbon sequestration and that sequestration may continue longer depending on the agroforestry system and tree species. It does not assess an extension of a net-zero-emissions period or compare longer-lived eucalypts with revegetation planted primarily for biodiversity. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingown data

    In 2021, Jigsaw Farms emissions totalled 10,870 t CO2-e.

    “Emissions in 2021 were 10,870 t carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 -e)”
    • Also stated in: § Emissions from livestock, farm operations and inputs · hedged
      “It was estimated that during the 2021 calendar year, emissions from Jigsaw farms operations totalled 10,870 t CO 2 -e”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Farm records provide accurate data on animal numbers, fuel use, electricity, fertiliser, herbicides, purchased stock and feed.
  • Findingown data

    After 2014, an increase in GHGe from higher animal numbers and declining sequestration rates meant the enterprise was no longer net zero.

    “After this, an increase in GHGe from higher animal numbers and declining sequestration rates meant the enterprise was no longer net zero.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    From 2010 to 2014, Hensley Park sequestered more carbon in trees and soils than the equivalent GHGe produced.

    “From 2010 to 2014, Jigsaw Farm's Hensley Park property sequestered more carbon in trees and soils than the equivalent GHGe produced.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In 2021, vegetation sequestered 6704 t CO2-e.

    “while vegetation sequestered 6704 t CO 2 -e.”
    • Also stated in: § Carbon sequestration in trees · plain
      “During the 2021 calendar year, trees sequestered a total of -6704 t CO 2 -e”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 31
  • May combine two claims. 25

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    For permanent revegetation above-ground, live biomass for each plot was estimated from stem diameter measurements using allometric models for each species group.

    “For permanent revegetation above-ground, live biomass for each plot was estimated from stem diameter measurements using allometric models for each species group (Paul et al. 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Paul et al. 2016 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Allocation between meat and wool for the sheep enterprise was based on the protein allocation method of Wiedemann et al. 2015, 2016b.

    “Allocation between meat and wool for the sheep enterprise was based on the protein allocation method of (Wiedemann et al. 2015(Wiedemann et al. , 2016b)).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Wiedemann et al. 2015 source
    • cites Wiedemann et al. 2016b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Emissions could continue to be offset by increasing the area planted to trees, but this may impact on livestock production.

    “Emissions could continue to be offset by increasing the area planted to trees, but this may impact on livestock production (Kingwell 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kingwell 2021 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Although sequestration rates decline to low levels once the site is fully stocked and trees reach maturity, trees do continue to provide critical ecosystem services, including biodiversity, salinity management and animal welfare benefits through shade and shelter.

    “Notably, although sequestration rates decline to low levels once the site is fully stocked and trees reach maturity (Department of the Prime Minister, and Cabinet 2021), trees do continue to provide critical ecosystem services, including biodiversity, salinity management and animal welfare benefits through shade and shelter (Monckton and Mendham 2022).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Department of the Prime Minister, and Cabinet 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Monckton and Mendham 2022 source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Trees provided 89% of sequestration and soils provided 11% on average.

    “Trees, on average, provided 89% of the sequestration and soils provided 11%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Although net emissions increased, the emissions intensity of products was halved due to sequestration.

    “Although net emissions increased, the emissions intensity of products was halved due to sequestration.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Both studies found that the peak rate of carbon sequestration by planted trees occurred in 2011.

    “Both studies found that the peak rate of carbon sequestration by planted trees occurred in 2011 (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    This study indicated a lower planted area (360 vs 380 ha) because the areas were adjusted for actual stocked area, but higher sequestration rates.

    “This study indicated a lower planted area (360 vs 380 ha) because the areas were adjusted for actual stocked area, but higher sequestration rates.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Between 2006 and 2021, agroforestry plantings sequestered -83,490 t CO2-e and permanent revegetation sequestered -44,510 t CO2-e.

    “Models validated with on-ground measurements, determined that between 2006 and 2021, Jigsaw Farms sequestered a total of -128,032 t CO 2 -e, distributed as -75,170 t CO 2 -e and -52,830 t CO 2 -e at Hensley Park and Melville Forest, respectively; and -83,490 t CO 2 -e and -44,510 t CO 2 -e in the agroforestry and permanent revegetation plantings, respectively (Fig. 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    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).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Doran-Browne et al. 2018 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On-farm emissions were predominantly enteric CH4 (78.2% of Scope one emissions), followed by lime (7.3%), N2O from animal excreta (4.7%), CH4 from manure management (4.1%), N2O from leaching (3.4%) and CO2 from fuel use (1.2%).

    “On-farm emissions were predominantly enteric CH 4 (78.2% of Scope one emissions), followed by lime (7.3%), N 2 O from animal excreta (4.7%), CH 4 from manure management (4.1%),N 2 O from leaching (3.4%) and CO 2 from fuel use (1.2%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Farm records provide accurate data on animal numbers, fuel use, electricity, fertiliser, herbicides, purchased stock and feed.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Between 2006 and 2021, Hensley Park sequestered -75,170 t CO2-e and Melville Forest sequestered -52,830 t CO2-e.

    “Models validated with on-ground measurements, determined that between 2006 and 2021, Jigsaw Farms sequestered a total of -128,032 t CO 2 -e, distributed as -75,170 t CO 2 -e and -52,830 t CO 2 -e at Hensley Park and Melville Forest, respectively; and -83,490 t CO 2 -e and -44,510 t CO 2 -e in the agroforestry and permanent revegetation plantings, respectively (Fig. 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    During 2021, Jigsaw Farms sold 165,805 t beef, 593,291 t sheep meat and 126,531 t greasy wool.

    “During 2021, Jigsaw Farms sold 165,805 t beef, 593,291 t sheep meat and 126,531 t greasy wool (Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Farm records provide accurate data on animal numbers, fuel use, electricity, fertiliser, herbicides, purchased stock and feed.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The emissions intensity (excluding sequestration) of each product was 11.6 kg CO2-e/kg liveweight for beef, 8.5 kg CO2-e/kg liveweight for sheep and 30.8 kg CO2-e/kg of greasy wool.

    “The emissions intensity (excluding sequestration) of each product was calculated to be 11.6 kg CO 2 -e/kg liveweight for beef, 8.5 kg CO 2 -e/kg liveweight for sheep and 30.8 kg CO 2 -e/kg of greasy wool (Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Farm records provide accurate data on animal numbers, fuel use, electricity, fertiliser, herbicides, purchased stock and feed.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Jigsaw Farms has a solar power installation, reducing its reliance on grid electricity.

    “This was relatively low because Jigsaw Farms has a solar power installation, reducing its reliance on grid electricity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Data on soil carbon was unable to determine if soil carbon had increased in Jigsaw Farms during the 2021 calendar year, nor could it conclude if soil carbon had achieved a steady state.

    “Data on soil carbon was unable to determine if soil carbon had increased in Jigsaw Farms during the 2021 calendar year, nor could it conclude if soil carbon had achieved a steady state.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Under that assumption, net emissions intensity was reduced to 2.5 kg CO2-e/kg liveweight beef, 1.9 kg CO2-e/kg liveweight sheep, and 7.6 kg CO2-e/kg greasy wool.

    “with a net emissions intensity reduced to 2.5 kg CO 2 -e/kg liveweight of beef, 1.9 kg CO 2 -e/kg liveweight of sheep and 7.6 kg CO 2 -e/kg greasy wool (Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: 2021 livestock and farm emissions were the same over the previous 10 years.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Paris climate agreement set the goal of achieving a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of GHGe in the second half of this century, effectively establishing net zero emissions by 2050.

    “The Paris climate agreement (COP21) set the goal of achieving 'a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) in the second half of this century', thereby effectively establishing the target of net zero emissions by 2050 (UNFCCC 2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites UNFCCC 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Doran-Browne et al. 2018 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    FullCAM is a dynamic model that incorporates spatial variation in site conditions and daily or monthly variation in weather conditions to model vegetation growth.

    “The FullCAM model (2020 Public Release version) (Richards and Evans 2004) was used to estimate carbon sequestration in trees and shrubs.FullCAM is a dynamic model that incorporates spatial variation in site conditions and daily or monthly variation in weather conditions to model vegetation growth.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Richards and Evans 2004 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The SB-GAF tool calculates Scope one and two emissions using the IPCC-approved Australian National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGGI) method, whereas pre-farm Scope three emissions align with emission factors in the Ecoinvent database.

    “The SB-GAF tool calculates Scope one and two emissions using the IPCC-approved Australian National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGGI) method (DCCEW 2024), whereas pre-farm Scope three emissions align with emission factors in the Ecoinvent database (Wernet et al. 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites DCCEW 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Wernet et al. 2016 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In Doran-Browne et al. (2018), total gross emissions ranged from 2336 t CO2-e in 2000 to a maximum of 8520 t CO2-e in 2006, declining to 4805 t CO2-e in 2014.

    “which ranged from 2336 t CO 2 -e in 2000,”
    • Also stated in: § Emissions balance · plain
      “to a maximum of 8520 t CO 2 -e in 2006, declining to 4805 t CO 2 -e in 2014 (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Doran-Browne et al. 2018 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Calculated emissions intensity is within the range of other studies using the same methodology.

    “Calculated emissions intensity is within the range of other studies using the same methodology, with”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Wiedemann et al. 2016a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Alvarez-Hess et al. 2019 source
    • cites Wiedemann et al. 2015, 2016b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The Australian red meat sector has set a target of achieving zero net emissions by 2030.

    “The Australian red meat sector has set a target of achieving zero net emissions by 2030 (Mayberry et al. 2018)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mayberry et al. 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    FullCAM has calibrations to estimate carbon sequestration for different species, planting densities and planting configurations (blocks or belts).

    “It has calibrations to estimate carbon sequestration for different species, planting densities and planting configurations (blocks or belts).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Richards and Evans 2004 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    For the agroforestry plantings, field data was used to recalibrate the FullCAM Tree Yield Formula by adjusting the M value and parameter r for each CEA to scale the modelled above-ground biomass to match the measured data.

    “For the agroforestry plantings, field data was used to recalibrate the FullCAM Tree Yield Formula by adjusting the M value (the maximum above-ground biomass (t dry matter/ha) in undisturbed native vegetation) and parameter r (the siteproductivity-dependent, non-endemic species multiplier) for each CEA to scale the modelled above-ground biomass to match the measured data.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    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).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Doran-Browne et al. 2018 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    All emissions were converted to CO2-e using the GWP of 28 for methane and 265 for nitrous oxide, as per the NGGI.

    “All emissions were converted to CO 2 -e using the GWP of 28 for methane (CH 4 ) and 265 for nitrous oxide (N 2 O), as per the NGGI (DCCEW 2024).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites DCCEW 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    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).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Doran-Browne et al. 2018 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The global warming potential of methane and nitrous oxide changed from 21 and 310 to 28 and 265 respectively.

    “Furthermore, the global warming potential (GWP) of methane and nitrous oxide changed from 21 and 310 (IPCC 1996) to 28 and 265 respectively (IPCC 2014;DCCEW 2024).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites IPCC 1996

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites IPCC 2014

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites DCCEW 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    Other factors contributing to differences include a higher GWP for methane (28 versus 21).

    “Other factors include a higher GWP for methane (28 versus 21).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The previous assessment indicated that soil and tree sequestration rates would decline over time as soil carbon reached maximum potential and tree growth rates slowed.

    “This assessment indicated that soil and tree sequestration rates would decline over time as soil carbon reached maximum potential and tree growth rates slowed, and that livestock and farm practice emissions would exceed annual rates of carbon sequestration from 2017 onwards.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Doran-Browne et al. 2018 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The previous assessment indicated that livestock and farm practice emissions would exceed annual rates of carbon sequestration from 2017 onwards.

    “This assessment indicated that soil and tree sequestration rates would decline over time as soil carbon reached maximum potential and tree growth rates slowed, and that livestock and farm practice emissions would exceed annual rates of carbon sequestration from 2017 onwards.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Doran-Browne et al. 2018 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The farm greenhouse gas account was calculated within a pre-farm to farm gate life cycle assessment (LCA) boundary, as per ISO 14040 and ISO 14067 standards.

    “The tool calculates the farm greenhouse gas account within a pre-farm to farm gate life cycle assesment (LCA) boundary, as per ISO 14040 and ISO 14067 standards.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites ISO 14040

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites ISO 14067

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Harvesting the agroforestry trees was not incorporated in this study.

    “Harvesting the agroforestry trees was not incorporated in this study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Trees on livestock grazing properties are likely to be an ongoing asset in a balanced portfolio where natural capital is increasingly valued.

    “Trees on livestock grazing properties are therefore likely to be an ongoing asset in a balanced portfolio where natural capital is increasingly valued.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The cumulative benefits of more trees are likely to diminish as the area increases and competitive effects with pasture will be greater.

    “The cumulative benefits of more trees are likely to diminish as the area increases and competitive effects with pasture will be greater.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Emissions could potentially be continuously offset by expanding the area of trees, planting faster growing trees with higher carbon storage potential or, in the longer term, harvesting and replanting trees and incorporating carbon in long-lived wood products.

    “Emissions could potentially be continuously offset by expanding the area of trees, planting faster growing trees with higher carbon storage potential or, in the longer term, harvesting and replanting trees and incorporating carbon in long-lived wood products.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    To include the sequestration of carbon in soils, soil must be sampled at a minimum depth of 30 cm and show a statistically significant change in soil carbon (t C/ha) from historical values.

    “To include the sequestration of carbon in soils, soil must be sampled at a minimum depth of 30 cm and show a statistically significant change soil carbon (t C/ha) from historical values.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The higher sequestration value is partly due to the inclusion of the Melville Forest property in the current analysis, but also due to the significant correction applied to the modelling for environmental plantings, based on on-ground measurements.

    “The higher sequestration value is partly due to the inclusion of the Melville Forest property in the current analysis, but also due to the significant correction applied to the modelling for environmental plantings, based on on-ground measurements.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Tree area and tree age are important for the potential to offset livestock emissions.

    “This observation emphasises the importance of tree area, as well as tree age, on the potential to offset livestock emissions (Fig. 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Planting woody vegetation over an extensive area (17%) of Jigsaw Farms enhanced livestock production, animal welfare and farm biodiversity.

    “In conclusion, this analysis shows planting woody vegetation over an extensive area (17%) of Jigsaw Farms was able to achieve a net zero livestock production system, while enhancing livestock production, animal welfare and farm biodiversity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Even with favourable variables, all soil will reach a steady state of sequestration and cannot be relied upon to reduce net emissions infinitely.

    “But even with favourable variables, all soil will reach a steady state of sequestration and cannot be relied upon to reduce net emissions infinitely.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    Reducing the area of environmental plantings and increasing timber trees could reduce the benefits of environmental plantings.

    “However, reducing the area of environmental plantings and increasing timber trees could reduce the benefits of environmental plantings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Over multiple harvesting and replanting cycles (50+ years), this could result in higher levels of carbon stocks than if trees are left unharvested, which could increase the level of emissions offset by trees.

    “Over multiple harvesting and replanting cycles (50+ years), this could result in higher levels of carbon stocks than if trees are left unharvested, which could increase the level of emissions offset by trees.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    In this analysis, emissions were calculated for the 2021 calendar year only.

    “In this analysis, emissions were calculated for the 2021 calendar year only.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In Doran-Browne et al. (2018), tree sequestration was estimated at -37,003 t CO2-e from 2000 to 2014, with a peak of -5104 t CO2-e in 2011.

    “where tree sequestration was estimated at -37,003 t CO 2 -e from 2000 to 2014, with a peak of -5104 t CO 2 -e in 2011 Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Doran-Browne et al. 2018 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Harvesting trees and capturing carbon in long-lived products such as in construction or furniture would result in a temporary reduction in carbon stocks on the property but longer-term storage of carbon off site.

    “Harvesting trees and capturing carbon in longlived products such as in construction or furniture would result in a temporary reduction in carbon stocks on the property but longer-term storage of carbon off site (Clean Energy Regulator 2024).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Clean Energy Regulator 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

48 of 48

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Apart from destocking, options to reduce enteric methane are currently limited.

    “Apart from destocking, options to reduce enteric methane are currently limited and one of the main pathways to achieving zero net emissions production at farm scale is through carbon sequestration in soils and trees.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    One of the main pathways to achieving zero net emissions production at farm scale is through carbon sequestration in soils and trees.

    “Apart from destocking, options to reduce enteric methane are currently limited and one of the main pathways to achieving zero net emissions production at farm scale is through carbon sequestration in soils and trees.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Farm records provide accurate data on animal numbers, fuel use, electricity, fertiliser, herbicides, purchased stock and feed.

    “Sheep and cattle numbers were sourced from farm records and modelled using the GrassGro model”
    “Data on fuel use, electricity, fertiliser, herbicides and purchased stock and feed were sourced from farm records.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Emissions in the early 2010s were similar to those estimated for 2021.

    “If emissions in the early 2010s were similar to those estimated for 2021, the property would have been carbon neutral for a period of about 5 years from 2008 to 2012.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Livestock inventory was stable between 2010 and 2017.

    “Assuming a stable livestock inventory, this would suggest Jigsaw Farms achieved roughly net zero between 2010 and 2017 (Table 1; Fig. 3).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    2021 livestock and farm emissions were the same over the previous 10 years.

    “On this basis, if it is assumed that the 2021 livestock and farm emissions were the same over the previous 10 years, the trees offset an average of 77% of total gross farm emissions over 10 years (Table 3; Fig. 3),”
6 of 6

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Two different net-zero durations under 2021-level emissions

    Major

    One passage estimates about five net-zero years if emissions were similar to those in 2021; another says 2021-level emissions would reduce the period to one or two years.

  • Conflicting end dates for the net-zero period

    Major

    The abstract says the enterprise was no longer net zero after 2014, whereas the results estimate that Jigsaw Farms remained net zero through 2017.

  • Beef sales unit conflicts with the reported emissions intensity

    Minor

    At the stated 165,805 tonnes of beef sold, the table's 1,919 tonnes of beef-enterprise emissions imply about 0.0116 kg CO2-e per kg of beef, not 11.6. The reported intensity would fit sales stated in kilograms rather than tonnes.

    Reported 11.6 · recomputed 0.011574

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. IPCC (1996) Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Table of GWP values, Chapter 2 [Core Writing Team J.T Houghton, L.G.M Filho, B.A Callander, N Harris, A Kattenberg and K Maskell (eds.)]. IPCC, Cambridge, Great Britain.
  2. IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Table of GWP values, Chapter 8 [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
  3. UNFCCC (2022) Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-sixth session, held in Glasgow from 31 October to 13 November 2021. Addendum Part two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-sixth session. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), FCCC/CP/2021/12/Add.1.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Macdonald, A., Court, J., Meyer, R., Wootton, M., Kantor, E., Keenan, R., Stewart, H., & Eckard, R.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Government of Victoria (AU)
  • CJigsaw Farms, 1874 Hensley Park Road, Hensley Park, Vic 3301, Australia.
  • DHugh Stewart Consulting, Barwon Heads, Vic 3227, Australia.
Corresponding author
Eckard, R.
ORCID
Venue
Animal Production Science
Publisher
CSIRO Publishing
Published
2025-05-01
Volume
65
Issue
7
ISSN
  • 1836-0939 (ISSN-L)
  • 1836-5787
DOI
10.1071/an24346
OpenAlex
W4409981516
Semantic Scholar
4a7f53cc12d330728ad95bdc53548d2a0ac565de
Cited by
6
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1
FWCI
3.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Animal Production Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Meat and Livestock Australia (MERLMLA000001)
  • Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (MERLMLA000001)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Pasture and Agricultural Systems
Keywords
carbon sequestration, net-zero emissions, livestock greenhouse gas emissions, soil carbon, woody vegetation, tree planting, emission intensity, climate change mitigation

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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