January 20, 2026 | Nature Communications |
Introduction: This study, led by the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture at the University of Tasmania (Australia) with participation from industry and research partners, co-designs and models farm interventions across southern Australia to evaluate which carbon farming options best balance net GHG reductions, profitability, and biodiversity outcomes under realistic constraints.
Key findings: The modelling shows clear trade-offs. Planting native trees delivers the largest overall abatement potential, but outcomes vary widely depending on baseline emissions and land availability. In one case, a farm becomes a net sink of 317 t COâ‚‚e per year after tree planting, whereas another achieves only a 15% offset. Tree planting can also reduce gross margins by approximately 9% to 32% under low carbon and livestock prices due to fencing, maintenance, and foregone production, although higher carbon prices can partially offset these losses in some cases, with gross margin increases of 2% to 14%. Antimethanogenic feed supplements reduce net GHG emissions by about 19% to 32%, but high costs can substantially lower profitability, with reported gross margin declines of 63% to 115% under low price conditions. In contrast, antimethanogenic pasture renovation delivers moderate mitigation of about 14% to 25% net emission reductions and modest profit gains of 2% to 5% under low prices and 5% to 9% under high prices, making it one of the few relatively balanced options. The authors conclude that combining complementary interventions and evaluating outcomes against each farm’s baseline are essential to avoid single-metric solutions that fail to gain adoption.
