Grazing is a major land use in Australia’s rangelands. The ‘safe’ livestock carrying capacity (LCC) required to maintain resource condition is strongly dependent on climate. We reviewed: the approaches for quantifying LCC; current trends in climate and their effect on components of the grazing system; implications of the ‘best estimates’ of climate change projections for LCC; the agreement and disagreement between the current trends and projections; and the adequacy of current models of forage production in simulating the impact of climate change. We report the results of a sensitivity study of climate change impacts on forage production across the rangelands, and we discuss the more general issues facing grazing enterprises associated with climate change, such as ‘known uncertainties’ and adaptation responses (e.g. use of climate risk assessment). We found that the method of quantifying LCC from a combination of estimates (simulations) of long-term (>30 years) forage production and successful grazier experience has been well tested across northern Australian rangelands with different climatic regions. This methodology provides a sound base for the assessment of climate change impacts, even though there are many identified gaps in knowledge. The evaluation of current trends indicated substantial differences in the trends of annual rainfall (and simulated forage production) across Australian rangelands with general increases in most of western Australian rangelands (including northern regions of the Northern Territory) and decreases in eastern Australian rangelands and south-western Western Australia. Some of the projected changes in rainfall and temperature appear small compared with year-to-year variability. Nevertheless, the impacts on rangeland production systems are expected to be important in terms of required managerial and enterprise adaptations. Some important aspects of climate systems science remain unresolved, and we suggest that a risk-averse approach to rangeland management, based on the ‘best estimate’ projections, in combination with appropriate responses to short-term (1–5 years) climate variability, would reduce the risk of resource degradation. Climate change projections – including changes in rainfall, temperature, carbon dioxide and other climatic variables – if realised, are likely to affect forage and animal production, and ecosystem functioning. The major known uncertainties in quantifying climate change impacts are: (i) carbon dioxide effects on forage production, quality, nutrient cycling and competition between life forms (e.g. grass, shrubs and trees); and (ii) the future role of woody plants including effects of fire, climatic extremes and management for carbon storage. In a simple example of simulating climate change impacts on forage production, we found that increased temperature (3°C) was likely to result in a decrease in forage production for most rangeland locations (e.g. –21% calculated as an unweighted average across 90 locations). The increase in temperature exacerbated or reduced the effects of a 10% decrease/increase in rainfall respectively (–33% or –9%). Estimates of the beneficial effects of increased CO2 (from 350 to 650 ppm) on forage production and water use efficiency indicated enhanced forage production (+26%). The increase was approximately equivalent to the decline in forage production associated with a 3°C temperature increase. The large magnitude of these opposing effects emphasised the importance of the uncertainties in quantifying the impacts of these components of climate change. We anticipate decreases in LCC given that the ‘best estimate’ of climate change across the rangelands is for a decline (or little change) in rainfall and an increase in temperature. As a consequence, we suggest that public policy have regard for: the implications for livestock enterprises, regional communities, potential resource damage, animal welfare and human distress. However, the capability to quantify these warnings is yet to be developed and this important task remains as a challenge for rangeland and climate systems science.

Achieving more uniform grazing at landscape and paddock scales is seen as an important management objective by pastoralists in northern Australia, but it is difficult to attain in practice. This paper presents a brief review of some key factors to be considered in attempts to modify grazing distribution in extensive rangelands by drawing on the preliminary results of a project that is investigating several options for achieving more uniform grazing. Subdividing the landscape into smaller paddocks and, to a lesser extent, installing additional water points in large paddocks are effective in distributing grazing more widely across the landscape. However, these approaches are less effective in achieving uniform grazing within paddocks, and areas of concentrated use still occur even in small paddocks. To achieve spatial grazing objectives, it is necessary to use management tools that operate at the appropriate scale. Attaining more even use within paddocks should therefore be viewed as a separate management objective, requiring different techniques, to obtaining more effective use of the landscape as a whole. Integrating the use of several spatial management tools that act at different scales is likely to be most effective in improving grazing distribution. Our findings also highlight the importance of understanding paddocks in terms of the spatial arrangement of forage resources and their acceptability and quality in relation to water points and other landscape features. Differences between individual cattle in the way they use the landscape are important in producing more uniform use in larger paddocks and may also offer other opportunities for improving the use of landscape resources overall. Finally, the implications of more uniform use for livestock production and other land use values should be considered, with the protection of biodiversity values potentially requiring special management arrangements where more even use is achieved.

The germinable soil seed bank of a grassy Eucalyptus populnea F.Muell, open woodland was investigated in relationship to distance from water (away from a bore-drain) on North Yancho Station, near Bollon in southern semi-arid Queensland. The germinable soil seed bank was both diverse and abundant, 69 taxa of seedlings being identified to species and 2 more to genus. A mean density of 13 207 ± 4160 seeds m-2 was recorded, with over 80% of the seed being from the annual forbs Crassula sieberana (Schultes & J.H.Shultes) Druce, Wahlenbergia tumidifructa P.J.Smith and Dysphania gomulifera (Nees) Paul G.Wilson. Most common species showed spatial variation in their germinable seed density with relation to distance from water, resembling the patterns previously reported by other authors for standing vegetation under stocking pressure gradients.

Rainfall variability is a major challenge to sustainable grazing management in northern Australia, with management often complicated further by large, spatially-heterogeneous paddocks. This paper presents the latest grazing research and associated bio-economic modelling from northern Australia and assesses the extent to which current recommendations to manage for these issues are supported. Overall, stocking around the safe long-term carrying capacity will maintain land condition and maximise long-term profitability. However, stocking rates should be varied in a risk-averse manner as pasture availability varies between years. Periodic wet-season spelling is also essential to maintain pasture condition and allow recovery of overgrazed areas. Uneven grazing distributions can be partially managed through fencing, providing additional water-points and in some cases patch-burning, although the economics of infrastructure development are extremely context-dependent. Overall, complex multi-paddock grazing systems do not appear justified in northern Australia. Provided the key management principles outlined above are applied in an active, adaptive manner, acceptable economic and environmental outcomes will be achieved irrespective of the grazing system applied.

The financial health of beef cattle enterprises in northern Australia has declined markedly over the last decade due to an escalation in production and marketing costs and a real decline in beef prices. Historically, gains in animal productivity have offset the effect of declining terms of trade on farm incomes. This raises the question of whether future productivity improvements can remain a key path for lifting enterprise profitability sufficient to ensure that the industry remains economically viable over the longer term. The key objective of this study was to assess the production and financial implications for north Australian beef enterprises of a range of technology interventions (development scenarios), including genetic gain in cattle, nutrient supplementation, and alteration of the feed base through introduced pastures and forage crops, across a variety of natural environments. To achieve this objective a beef systems model was developed that is capable of simulating livestock production at the enterprise level, including reproduction, growth and mortality, based on energy and protein supply from natural C 4 pastures that are subject to high inter-annual climate variability. Comparisons between simulation outputs and enterprise performance data in three case study regions suggested that the simulation model (the Northern Australia Beef Systems Analyser) can adequately represent the performance beef cattle enterprises in northern Australia. Testing of a range of development scenarios suggested that the application of individual technologies can substantially lift productivity and profitability, especially where the entire feedbase was altered through legume augmentation. The simultaneous implementation of multiple technologies that provide benefits to different aspects of animal productivity resulted in the greatest increases in cattle productivity and enterprise profitability, with projected weaning rates increasing by 25%, liveweight gain by 40% and net profit by 150% above current baseline levels, although gains of this magnitude might not necessarily be realised in practice. While there were slight increases in total methane output from these development scenarios, the methane emissions per kg of beef produced were reduced by 20% in scenarios with higher productivity gain. Combinations of technologies or innovative practices applied in a systematic and integrated fashion thus offer scope for providing the productivity and profitability gains necessary to maintain viable beef enterprises in northern Australia into the future.Crown