ACRIS Livestock Density Update 2003-2008
Updated information to that provided in
Rangelands 2008 – Taking the pulse
Gary Bastin, ACRIS Management Unit
CSIRO, PO Box 2111, Alice Springs NT 0871
(email: Gary.Bastin@csiro.au)
This project is supported by Ninti One Limited,
through funding from the Australian Government's Caring for our Country.
1
The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect those of the Australian Government or the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities.
While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually
correct, the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the
contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly
through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.
2
Total Grazing Pressure
Grazing pressure exerted by domestic livestock (sheep and cattle), kangaroos and feral herbivores
(goats, donkeys, camels, rabbits etc) is a major driver of change in the rangelands. The cumulative
effect of all grazers in an area is ‘total grazing pressure’ (TGP). In Rangelands 2008 – Taking the
pulse (Bastin et al. 2008), ACRIS demonstrated that there are reasonably extensive and reliable data
for livestock and kangaroo densities in much of the pastoral rangelands (livestock density updated
here, recent regional kangaroo densities reported in a separate document). Information on densities
and distribution of feral herbivores was much more descriptive with an example included in the
2008 report showing the distribution and relative abundance of camels (similar information for
other species in West 2008). Subsequent to Rangelands 2008 – Taking the pulse, Saalfeld and
Edwards (2008, 2010) reported much more comprehensively on the density and impact of camels in
remote Australia. It remains however that information on densities and grazing impact of most feral
herbivores is patchy and generally qualitative for the rangelands as a whole.
Key points
Key points to emerge from updated reporting of livestock density include:

ACRIS now has an embedded process for reporting change in livestock density based on
periodic census and surveys of graziers by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to
obtain stock numbers. These data are processed for ACRIS by the Queensland Department
of Environment and Resource Management (DERM). ACRIS is not able to quantify the
reliability of all regional data; available jurisdictional data agree for some regions and differ
elsewhere.

Since our previous reporting in Rangelands 2008 – Taking the pulse, stock density (almost
exclusively cattle) has continued to increase in many northern pastoral bioregions. Much of
this increase is presumed to be driven by continuing strong demand, until 2009, for liveexport cattle into south-east Asia.

In contrast, regional livestock densities declined between 2004 and 2008 in much of the
south eastern, southern and south western rangelands.

Through the first decade of the 21st century, there has been a variable relationship between
change in livestock density and seasonal quality (as indicated by decile rainfall). Stock
densities appeared to broadly track seasonal quality in some bioregions (i.e. the expected
result) while in others (particularly parts of northern and central Australia), density remained
above the 1984-91 base as seasonal quality declined.

Timely monitoring of landscape function and critical stock forage is critical where reduced
stocking density does not closely align with declining seasonal quality.
3
As reported in Rangelands 2008 – Taking the pulse (Bastin et al. 2008), the reliability of findings
remains an issue. Reliability of the ABS survey data is unknown where corresponding
jurisdictional data are not available for corroboration. Additionally, concordance procedures
between Statistical Local Areas (SLA) used by ABS to collate data and bioregions (used by ACRIS
for reporting) may be tenuous for those pastoral bioregions where there is small sample size and/or
poor spatial correspondence between the two regionalisations.
Kangaroos contribute significantly to total grazing pressure and recent changes in their regional
populations are reported in the associated product “ACRIS Kangaroo Density Update 2004-2008”.
Continuing lack of quantitative data on numbers of feral herbivores (particularly goats) prevents
ACRIS from comprehensively reporting change in total grazing pressure in the rangelands.
Livestock densities in rangelands
Livestock density is a useful indicator of sustainable management (Harrington et al. 1984). In
Australia’s rangelands, the density of livestock ― numbers of sheep and cattle per unit of land area
― is the one component of TGP that is directly under the influence of pastoral management. As
reported in Rangelands 2008 – Taking the pulse, there are two components to stock densities: (i) the
inherent productivity or capacity of the land to carry stock (i.e. long-term carrying capacity) and (ii)
the number of stock on the land relative to recent seasonal conditions (i.e. seasonal quality). For
example, the Mitchell grasslands in northern Australia have a high capacity to carry stock, but stock
numbers are usually reduced during periods of below-average rainfall.
As for Rangelands 2008 – Taking the pulse, two sets of maps are used to update reporting of
change.
change in livestock density, standardised as dry-sheep equivalents (DSE) per km2, for
pastoral bioregions on an annual basis between 2003 and 2008, and
(i)
(ii) the percentage change in yearly densities between 2003 and 2008 relative to the average of
the preceding 1984-1991 period.
Change in livestock density
Figure 3.28 in Rangelands 2008 – Taking the pulse (page 61) showed that:

The eastern margin of the rangelands has inherently greater pastoral productivity in terms of
livestock density (see, for example, the 2003 data reproduced here in Figure 1). Central and
western pastoral bioregions had the lowest stocking densities.
4

In the period 1993 to 2004, livestock densities averaged across the grazed area of pastoral
bioregions were relatively stable compared with the large differences in densities occurring
between IBRA regions.
Figure 1. Stocking density for 2003 (DSE / km2).
Map compiled by the ACRIS-MU from ABS and Qld DERM data.
To enhance differences amongst pastoral bioregions with inherently lower carrying capacity, recent
regional livestock densities are shown in Figure 2 using a colour scale between 2 and 25 DSE /
km2.
5
Figure 2. Stocking density between 2003 and 2008. 2006 was an Agricultural Census year and had higher
data reliability.
Maps compiled by the ACRIS-MU from ABS and Qld DERM data.
6
Box 1. Data on livestock numbers
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) conducts annual assessments of domestic stock (sheep
and beef cattle) numbers on pastoral leases, with a complete Agricultural Census conducted every
five years (most recently, 2006) and sample surveys conducted in intervening years. The ABS
compiles and reports survey data by Statistical Local Area (SLA).
The ABS livestock data are used by the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource
Management (DERM) for AussieGRASS simulations. John Carter (DERM) concorded the most
recent data (2005 to 2008) to bioregions and made them available to ACRIS. ACRIS does not
report livestock densities for bioregions where less than 25% of the area was grazed or where there
were fewer than five pastoral leases.
The accuracy of the ABS survey data is an important issue when interpreting and reporting changes
in livestock densities at the bioregional level. In the years between the five-yearly censuses,
surveys only sample a small proportion of pastoralists. Data accuracy is obviously higher in the
years of census (1997, 2001, 2006). Also, where properties are very large, they may extend across
more than one bioregion causing a relatively poor correspondence between SLAs and bioregions.
This can further reduce the accuracy of the livestock densities reported here.
For Rangelands 2008 – Taking the pulse reporting, comparisons of the ABS-sourced data with
livestock returns to the WA and SA pastoral land boards showed variable levels of agreement.
There was broad agreement for the main pastoral bioregions in SA and parts of WA. However,
there were some discrepancies in other parts of WA, notably for the Kimberley and Yalgoo
bioregions. As with ABS data, where properties are large and can extend across bioregion
boundaries, the accuracy of data amalgamated to the bioregion scale and reported at that level may
be reduced. ACRIS has gained further access to regional stock returns lodged with the WA Pastoral
Land Board and comparisons of these data with the ABS-sourced data are reported in Appendix 1.
In summary, a caveat applies – use caution when interpreting the changes in livestock densities
reported in this update.
Much of northern Australia had a considerably higher livestock density between 2003 and 2008
compared with the average between 1984 and 1991 (Figure 3). This included:
 The Brigalow Belt North, Desert Uplands, Einasleigh Uplands, Gulf Plains, Mount Isa Inlier
and, to a lesser extent, Mitchell Grass Downs bioregions in northern and central Queensland.
 The Daly Basin, Sturt Plateau, Pine Creek, Gulf Coastal and Gulf Fall & Uplands bioregions
in the northern part of the NT, the Davenport Murchison Ranges (and, to a lesser extent,
Mitchell Grass Downs) in the central NT and the Finke bioregion in the southern NT
(extending into northern SA).
7
Figure 3. Percentage changes in livestock densities for rangeland bioregions between 2003 and 2008 compared
with the mean stocking density for the 1984-91 period.
Maps compiled by the ACRIS-MU from ABS and Qld DERM data.
8

The Victoria Bonaparte (extending into the NT), Pilbara and Gascoyne bioregions in WA
(but less so in 2007). Recent stocking densities in the Northern Kimberley, Victoria
Bonaparte and Ord Victoria Plains (in both WA and the NT) were also higher compared to
the 1984-91 average (but to a lesser extent than for the bioregions previously listed).
Conversely, much of the south eastern, southern and south western rangelands had a lower stocking
density between 2003 and 2008 compared with the average for 1984-91.
 In southern Queensland, western NSW and neighbouring SA, livestock density was
consistently lower in most bioregions; i.e. Mulga Lands, Channel Country, Darling Riverine
Plains, Cobar Peneplain, Broken Hill Complex, Murray Darling Depression and Riverina.

Elsewhere in pastoral SA, the Gawler and Flinders Lofty Block bioregions had recent
reduced stock numbers compared to the 1984-91 average.

In southern WA, livestock densities in the Carnarvon, Murchison, Yalgoo and Nullarbor
bioregions between 2003 and 2008 were lower than the average for 1984-91.
Although recent stocking density in many rangeland bioregions has been consistently above or
below that of the base period (i.e. average for 1984-1991), trends in the recent rate of change in
livestock density were spatially variable across bioregions (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Slope of trend line
for rate of change in relative
stocking density between
2003 and 2008 compared to
the base (i.e. average for
1984-91). Bioregions with a
high positive slope had a
strong consistent increase
(relative to the base period).
Conversely, bioregions with a
strong negative slope had a
consistent decrease (relative
to the base period).
Map compiled by the
ACRIS-MU from ABS and
Qld DERM data.
9
In the Top End of the NT, the Daly Basin, Sturt Plateau, Pine Creek, Gulf Coastal and Gulf Fall &
Uplands bioregions all showed rapid increases in relative stocking density (further illustrated for
some bioregions in Figure 5). Much of this recent increased rate of stocking is probably due to
property development associated with the live-cattle export trade through Darwin.
Similar recent rates of increase in livestock density have also occurred in the Kimberley region
(Dampierland, Northern and Central Kimberley bioregions and, at a lesser rate, Victoria Bonaparte
and Ord Victoria Plain bioregions [both extending into the NT]). Again, this expansion was
probably driven by the live-cattle trade. Although the Pilbara bioregion is mapped with a negative
slope, livestock densities were well above the 1984-91 base between 2003 and 2006, and closer to
the base in 2007 and 2008 (see Figure 7). Similarly, livestock densities in the Gascoyne bioregion
during the mid 2000s were well above the 1984-91 base (Figure 3) but the rate of change appears to
have stabilised (Figure 4).
In Queensland, cattle numbers have continued to increase in the northern and southern Brigalow
Belt bioregions and, to a lesser extent, the Mount Isa Inlier, Desert Uplands and Mitchell Grass
Downs (including that part in the NT, Figure 4).
For those bioregions with recent stocking densities below the 1984-91 average (see Figure 3), there
have been consistent declines for the Murchison, Coolgardie, Yalgoo and Nullarbor bioregions (all
in WA, Figure 4). In the south eastern rangelands, the Riverina, Cobar Peneplain and Murray
Darling Depression bioregions have shown lesser rates of decline.
Relative stocking density in the Stony Plains bioregion (SA) has declined in recent years (Figure 5)
from being above the 1984-91 base in 2003 to well below it in 2008 (Figure 3).
Example time-trace graphs shown in Figures 5, 6 and 7 further illustrate some of the more recent
relative increases or decreases in regional livestock density.
Figure 5. Percentage
% Change in Stocking Density (1984-91 base)
200
since 2003
Sturt Plateau NT)
Brigalow Belt North (Qld)
Ord Victoria Plain (WA & NT)
180
change in livestock densities
between 1992 and 2008 for
the grazed area of the Sturt
Plateau, Brigalow Belt
160
North and Ord Victoria
Plain bioregions. Change is
140
calculated relative to the
average stocking density of
120
each region for the 1984-91
base
period (dashed line).
100
Graph compiled by the
ACRIS-MU from ABS and
80
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Qld DERM data.
10
For the bioregions graphed in Figure 5:

There was more-or-less continual increase in stocking density in the Sturt Plateau bioregion
between 1993 and 2008 with the density increasing more rapidly since 2003.

Stocking density has increased in most years since 1995 in the Brigalow Belt North
bioregion with this rate of increase being fairly consistent between 2003 and 2008.

Cattle numbers increased gradually in the Ord Victoria Plain bioregion between 1993 and
2001. Livestock density then temporarily declined before increasing at a more rapid rate
between 2004 and 2007.
The Murchison, Murray Darling Depression and Stony Plains bioregions provide examples of
recent declines in stocking density (Figure 6): This decline was near-continuous between 2001 and
2008 for the Murchison and Murray Darling Depression bioregions and since 2002 for the Stony
Plains.
Figure 6. Percentage
150
% Change in Stocking Density (1984-91 base)
Murchison (WA)
Murray Darling Depression (NSW & SA)
Stony Plains (SA & NT)
since 2003
change in livestock
densities between 1992 and
130
2008 for the grazed area of
the Murchison, Murray
110
base
Darling Depression and
Stony Plains bioregions.
90
Change is calculated
relative to the average
70
stocking density of each
region for the 1984-91
50
period (dashed line).
30
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Graph compiled by the ACRIS-MU from ABS and Qld DERM data.
Examples of bioregions having generally rapid increase in stocking density in the mid to late 1990s
and then variable change since are shown in Figure 7. Based on these ABS data, cattle density
declined substantially in the Pilbara between 2004 and 2007. Cattle densities have remained
relatively stable in the other two example bioregions.
11
Figure 7. Percentage
170
Pilbara (WA)
Einasleigh Uplands (Qld)
Finke (NT & SA)
% Change in Stocking Density (1984-91 base)
160
change in livestock densities
between 1992 and 2008 for
150
the grazed area of the
140
Pilbara, Einasleigh Uplands
130
and Finke bioregions.
120
Change is calculated
110
relative to the average
stocking density of each
base
100
region for the 1984-91
90
period (dashed line).
since 2003
80
Graph compiled by the
70
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
ACRIS-MU from ABS and
Qld DERM data.
There are several drivers for the changes in livestock density reported in this update. Undoubtedly
seasonal conditions were an important driver throughout the rangelands (illustrated in Rangelands
2008 – Taking the pulse [see Figure 3.31, page 63] with updated examples shown in the following
section). The live-cattle export trade into south-east Asia underpins much of the recent increase in
stock numbers in northern pastoral bioregions. Continuing dry conditions into the late 2000s in the
south-eastern, southern and south-western rangelands were probably responsible for much of the
decline illustrated in Figure 6 and mapped in Figures 3 and 4. Expansion of cropping was probably
an ongoing contributing factor in livestock decline in the south-east (e.g. the Riverina, Darling
Riverine Plains and Cobar Peneplain bioregions).
Livestock density adjusted for seasonal quality
An important indicator of sustainable grazing management is how quickly pastoralists adjust
livestock numbers to match seasonal conditions, particularly when seasonal quality is declining.
Two examples of regional changes in livestock density and seasonal quality (based on decile
rainfall) are shown in Figure 8.
Pastoralists, collectively, in the Stony Plains bioregion appeared to match stock numbers to seasonal
quality through much of the 1990s and 2000s. In particular, stocking density declined appreciably
with the predominantly drier years of the most recent decade.
In contrast, cattle numbers (on a DSE basis) in the neighbouring Finke bioregion remained well
above the 1984-91 average between 2002 and 2008 during a period that included three years of
below-average seasonal quality. Maintenance of high regional stocking density in drier years raises
12
concerns about sustainable grazing management and emphasises the need for timely monitoring of
both landscape function and critical stock forage to ensure that the natural resource base
underpinning livestock production (i.e. soil and vegetation) is not being degraded.
10
170
Stony Plains IBRA
9
decile rainfall
relative change in stock density
150
130
7
6
110
5
90
4
3
70
% of 1984-91 base stock density
Seasonal quality (decile rainfall)
8
2
50
1
0
30
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
10
9
170
decile rainfall
relative change in stock density
Finke IBRA
150
130
7
6
110
5
90
4
3
70
% of 1984-91 base stock density
Seasonal quality (decile rainfall)
8
2
50
1
0
30
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Figure 8. Change in relative stock density related to decile rainfall (as an indicator of seasonal quality)
for the neighbouring Stony Plains and Finke bioregions in central Australia for the 1991-2008 period.
Change is calculated relative to the average stocking density of each region for the 1984-91 period
(dashed line, also indicates median rainfall). Decile rainfall is the spatially averaged annual rainfall
(April-March period) for each bioregion ranked against the long-term record (1890-2008).
Graphs: the ACRIS-MU. Data: Rainfall, Bureau of Meteorology; livestock density, ABS and Qld
DERM.
13
Acknowledgements
ACRIS gratefully acknowledges access to regional livestock density data in WA provided by that
state’s Pastoral Land Board.
References
Bastin, G. & the ACRIS Management Committee (2008). Rangelands 2008 – Taking the Pulse.
Published on behalf of the ACRIS Management Committee by the National Land and Water
Resources Audit, Canberra. Available at:
http://www.environment.gov.au/land/rangelands/acris/index.html
Harrington, G. N., Wilson, A. D. and Young, M. D. (1984). Management of Australia’s
Rangelands. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.
Saalfeld, W. K. and Edwards, G. P. (2008). Ecology of feral camels in Australia. Chapter 2 in
Managing the impacts of feral camels in Australia: a new way of doing business. DKCRC
Report 47. Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, Alice Springs.
Saalfeld, W. K. and Edwards, G. P. (2008). Distribution and abundance of the feral camel
(Camelus dromedarius) in Australia. The Rangeland Journal, 32, 1-9.
West, P. (2008). Assessing Invasive Animals in Australia 2008. National Land & Water Resources
Audit and Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. Published by NLWRA, Canberra.
14
Appendix: Comparison of livestock density data from different sources
The WA Pastoral Land Board requires pastoral lessees to lodge a lease-level annual stock return.
These data are collated, analysed and reported by the WA Department of Agriculture and Food as
an amalgamated figure at the district or bioregion level. To the extent that these returns are
accurately completed by all lessees, they provide a benchmark against which to compare the
credibility of the ABS-sourced data.
The ABS data as reported by ACRIS tend to understate regional livestock densities compared with
the Pastoral Land Board data (Figure 9 and Table 1). For the graphed examples (Figure 9), the
divergence between the two data sources was greater in latter years (2005 onwards).
6
Murchison
Livestock Density (DSE / sq km)
5
4
3
2
ACRIS
1
Pastoral Land Board
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2006
2007
2008
16
ACRIS
14
Livestock Density (DSE / sq km)
Pastoral Land Board
12
10
8
6
4
Pilbara
2
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Figure 9. Comparison of livestock densities for the Murchison (top) and Pilbara (bottom) bioregions
between 1992 and 2008..
Graphs: the ACRIS-MU. Data: WA Pastoral Land Board, ABS and Qld DERM.
15
Table 1. Percentage difference between ACRIS- and Pastoral Land Board (PLB)-based reporting of livestock density for several WA pastoral
bioregions between 1992 and 2008. A positive value means that the PLB density exceeded the ACRIS density. Conversely, a negative value means
that the PLB density was lower than the ACRIS density.
Bioregion
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Bioregions predominantly grazed by sheep
Carnarvon
17
15
11
25
14
19
20
23
32
25
16
11
6
17
18
40
43
Gascoyne
24
22
10
19
19
19
37
35
36
22
22
20
29
22
17
34
28
Murchison
4
4
7
8
7
11
12
23
6
-2
-2
-19
29
25
37
48
53
Nullarbor 1
-3
20
20
20
14
18
19
27
13
45
32
35
66
58
56
57
59
Bioregions predominantly grazed by cattle
Pilbara
17
21
10
24
24
24
16
32
34
30
18
26
12
15
32
50
47
Dampierland
-2
17
19
27
22
36
30
22
10
25
32
55
47
47
11
25
47
Central
Kimberley
-7
1
-16
-6
17
26
11
26
15
30
37
55
45
38
14
4
39
6
21
35
11
31
38
45
48
40
46
56
66
59
43
8
12
42
Ord Victoria
Plain 1
1
WA part of the bioregion only.
As noted in Box 1, stock returns to the WA Pastoral Land Board provide a measure of the accuracy of the ABS-sourced data. In summary, a
caveat applies – use caution when interpreting the changes in livestock densities reported in this update.
16