I'm not so sure we have to double production, some 30% of the worlds food is wasted through poor storage, crops damaged due to inefficient harvest, animals dying of disease, and uneaten food thrown out by the masses. Adding to that the amount fed to pets, race horses and other non-food animals we can get well toward having enough. Not to mention that the number of obese people approximately equal the number of starving. It will just require a redistribution and prioritisation of food supply. No, not everyone will be happy.


bugsy, I couldn't agree more, agriculture (until very recently) has been well and truly undervalued. The amount of staff shed in the depts of agriculture and natural resources is nothing short of amazing. Ag . Even then the federal budget hopes to cut a billion dollars from the DAFF portfolio.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200805/s2243745.htm

dickie, yes you are missing the fact that only about 1/10th of our animal turn off is live exported, and funnily enough 10 x $700 million is $7 billion, so dollar for dollar it stacks up pretty well, and the farmers get more in their pocket to boot. Bonus.

"dickie, yes you are missing the fact that only about 1/10th of our animal turn off is live exported, and funnily enough 10 x $700 million is $7 billion, so dollar for dollar it stacks up pretty well, and the farmers get more in their pocket to boot. Bonus."

Rojo

The philosophy that optimum profit margins outweigh any requirement to address the current agricultural practices, is indeed imprudent.

Economics and wisdom are not necessarily in the same hands when one fails to acknowledge the environmental and ethical impacts of Australia's penchant to increase livestock production - livestock which is not native to these lands.

This is in direct conflict with many credible articles where authors forecast a disturbing picture on climate change, in particular, the price we must pay if we are unable to think beyond a view which in essence, is parochial, environmentally degrading and subsequently, economically unviable.

With a human population of 21 million, livestock and crops already occupy some 60% of Australia's land mass. Mr Rudd, it appears, is in favour of increasing human population where urban development will impact further on Australia's fragile biodiversity.

Some poor nations depend on livestock as a major food source as they have no alternative. If "David at the Pinnacle" is correct in his advice that "crop yields in Australia have generally increased (per ha) over the last century (despite the use of (more) less productive land) indicating that the popular view of degradation is a myth," then Australia is not setting a good example by opportunistically exploiting those poor nations with their vigorous international meat promotions.

Nevertheless, WA's EPA department has tied up some pastoral lands for conservation. Unfortunately, the influential livestock industry has different ideas.

My layman's views appear not dissimilar to the authors of the articles I have provided, where they warn of the increased risk to human survival on this planet if we refuse to mitigate our addiction to a food culture which depends on intensively farmed livestock - a practice which is ecologically unsustainable and has contributed significantly to the disturbing status quo.

http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm

http://www.eurekalert.org/images/release_graphics/pdf/EH5.pdf

dickie, whilst I was only commenting on the profitability of live exports, you do raise an important point that all aspects of the Australian farming industry have to address. Sustainability.
With the surge in demand from the growing economies of Asia for our meat one wonders where it will all end. A growing middle class and a desire for animal protein will indeed present further opportunity for profit for the Australian farmer. The huge increases in land value signal a resurgence in rural output, an indication that people are willing to invest in a strong and sustainable industry.
More intensive management is increasing productivity and output. Output sorely required to feed an ever expanding population with the targeted 90g/day of meat . Doubling the current intake of low-income countries which consume 25-50g/day.

Whilst it is obvious to all that cattle and sheep are not native to Australia, we would also realise that nor are we, nor our dogs and cats, rabbits, foxes or cane toads. We all have environmental impacts, though I agree with you that we should utilise kangaroo and emu more.

Catalyst(ABC) stated recently that 75% of greenhouse emissions are from cities and urban centres , dwarfing the emissions from agriculture(to fill demand from urbanites anyway).

Over a billion people do depend on livestock for their livelihood, trust me they are not the ones Australian farmers are marketing to. It may well be much to those poor and subsistance nations benefit that the markets Australia supplies are satisfied by Australian produce. Otherwise the poor countries would be exporting the food that they desperately require at home, putting currency above their own peoples welfare.

I agree with David's view on the degradation myth, and the performance of cropping, but fail to connect the dots on the relationship with vigorous meat promotion.