Emissions reporting without the spin: real conversations with producers in Chinchilla
A recent Landcare Agriculture online workshop with Ruminati co-founder Will Onus reinforced something we see time and again across Australian agriculture: producers aren’t avoiding emissions conversations – they’re asking smart, practical questions and want answers that actually make sense on-farm.
Delivered in partnership with the Chinchilla Landcare Group, the session grew out of a conversation at last year’s National Landcare Conference, where Will met local producer Terry Elliott. Like many in the group, Terry and his peers run thoughtful, efficient grazing businesses and wanted to better understand emissions reporting – what it actually is, why banks and supply chains are asking for it, and whether it can genuinely work for producers rather than becoming just another compliance burden.
Reflecting on the session, Terry summed up one of the strongest takeaways for many in the room:
“One of the surprising and pleasing things is that this just wasn’t that hard!”
Emissions intensity: simple metric, complex reality
One question framed much of the discussion:
“What’s emissions intensity, and why does it matter?”
On paper, emissions intensity is straightforward — kilograms of CO₂ equivalents per kilogram of product produced. It’s often described as a measure of efficiency or productivity, and the Australian beef industry average currently sits at 12.6 kg CO₂e/kg beef, with lower numbers indicating more efficient systems.
For producers like Terry, understanding this metric was less about compliance and more about business insight.
“It gives you another indicator of your farm’s business health and allows you to compare your business to national data,” he said.
But as soon as producers began unpacking that number, the conversation quickly moved beyond spreadsheets.
Should producers be measured against a national average when production systems are so heavily shaped by climate, environment and region?
Should a grazing operation in the Riverina be directly compared to one in Chinchilla?
What happens in a tough year, when seasonal conditions outside a producer’s control push the number in the wrong direction?
And critically how is this data being used by banks and supply chains, and what are the risks (and opportunities) in sharing it?
These weren’t abstract questions. They came from producers already running highly productive, low-input systems, who are rightly asking whether early adopters risk being penalised for having already done the hard work.
Honest conversations about imperfect systems
The session also opened up a robust discussion about the limitations of current emissions accounting methodologies. Producers raised important gaps around:
- Soil carbon sequestration and methanotrophic bacteria that recycle methane
- Lack of recognition for regenerative practices already improving soil and landscape function
- Fire management and existing remnant vegetation that currently receive little or no credit
- The paradox that clearing trees can sometimes improve emissions intensity numbers under current rules
Will was upfront: today’s methodologies have blind spots. Ruminati is constrained by existing standards, but is actively advocating for improvements — and, importantly, giving producers a practical way to start building credible baselines now, rather than being caught unprepared later.
A tool built by producers, for producers
Ruminati was founded by cattle producers to solve problems from the farmer’s perspective. During the workshop, Will walked participants through the platform — covering inputs, livestock classes, production outputs and electricity use — and addressed common points of confusion around manure accounting and on-farm solar generation.
The platform allows producers to control who they share data with and is evolving to better capture farming practices and management stories alongside the numbers. Its purpose is not to judge systems, but to help producers understand their own emissions profile and communicate it clearly to stakeholders when required.
Doing nothing isn’t the safe option
One message landed clearly: doing nothing is never the right response when faced with new requirements.
While there are currently limited direct financial incentives for emissions reduction, supply chains, banks and insurers are moving quickly. Producers who understand their baseline, can explain their system, and can demonstrate efficiency will be far better positioned than those scrambling to respond once reporting becomes unavoidable.
As Will reflected after the workshop, every session like this reinforces the importance of staying connected to producers, listening carefully, and answering questions honestly — even when the answers aren’t simple or finished yet.
Want to run a session like this for your group?
This Chinchilla workshop is a strong example of what happens when producers are given space to ask real questions and engage with credible, practical tools.
Landcare Australia’s Landcare Agriculture program is actively supporting Landcare groups, producer groups and industry networks to design and deliver tailored online Ruminati sessions that suit local systems, regions and experience levels.
These sessions are:
- Highly interactive
- Grounded in real production contexts
- Designed to build understanding, not overwhelm
- Led by people who won’t shy away from the tricky questions
If your producers know emissions reporting is coming and want a sensible, producer-led place to start, this is a practical first step.
Read more about Landcare Australia and Ruminati partnership here.
To discuss designing a session for your group, contact:
Angela Hammond
Landcare Agriculture Program
📧 [email protected]