John Quiggin's article and many of the responses to it miss a critical point associated with beef production in the two major exporting nations. If beef production in feedlots in the US (in particular) was reduced by 50% and consumers replaced some of the beef protein lost with pig, poultry and pasture finished beef, there would be a significant increase in corn and feed grains for export and food aid. World grain prices which are closely aligned to annual corn and wheat production/use in major exporting/importing countries, would plummet.

Most of Australia's grain farm businesses would be unprofitable and quit grain growing. Subsidies would need to increase in the US and EU to keep farmers in business. The small holder farmers in Africa and south Asia would struggle even more to feed their families as low priced grain is dumped or free grain from aid programs decimates local demand and prices.

The low grain prices would see farmers shift out of production towards pastures and livestock, this in turn will produce a world grain shortage causing a price spike and so the boom bust cycle is perpetuated. World markets for grains are delicately balanced between supply and demand. Distortions in either supply or demand are unwanted. Farmers in developed and developing nations need as much market price certainty as possible as well as a fair price which should be constantly increasing in line with cost pressures.

Sorry, John, but your argument is entirely misdirected, constructed on not merely flawed but fundamentally misinformed premises and making invalid comparisons that fail to take old established landscapes, cultures and societies into account.

Frustrating, I know, but quickly, who ever heard of droving 2,500 head of chickens from Queensland down into the Western Districts to finish, or bringing a road train of fish down from the Kimberley?

I accept comparison between, say, Guangdong and The Netherlands, both wet country producing chickens, pork, fish and vegetables. In the latter there are also cattle but primarily dairy that produces some beef. Look at their cuisine and see what dishes feature most prominently.

I also accept comparisons between Australia, the US, Argentina, Mongolia, the Ukraine and the old Polish steppes where extensive rangelands produce horses alongside beef cattle and sheep that sustain if not quite a nomadic pastoralist society at minimum an extensive transhumance.

It is misleading and somewhat absurd to suggest that the 'rich' can eat beef because they are 'rich'. Guangdong is certainly not poor and neither is The Netherlands, they pursue some of the most prosperous agriculture anywhere, and certainly the most extensive trading conglomerates.

It is far more reliable to show that in those extensive steppe landscapes by contrast, horse and cattle production not only generate huge wealth but serve quite literally as bank accounts on the hoof.

On the downside, the real problem we face here is that without husbandry and good management these species quickly become feral and out of control.

The major tasks we have faced in rangeland management have little to do with what city people want to eat, or with getting rid of feral goats, brumbies, mickies and whatnot, but with introducing new bloodlines and new regimes that allow us to radically cut down on stocking rates - usually to about 1/4 - while maintaining an environmentally and economically sustainable level of production.

I am not even starting on the expermental work done in the field stations and veterinary schools. After the long period of the Great Depression, the War Drought and WWII itself, Australia's flocks and herds aside from being poor quality and rampant were riddled with parasites and disease, but that's another thing.

That's where the economies enter the equation, nowhere else. If we fail to maintain extensive husbandry in this country we will have a serious national disaster on our hands that ranks alongside any drought or flood.

The few stock in feedlots are not at issue. Closing them down and diverting the grain to other use will have no real impact on beef production.

The other very silly argument about grain being fed to animals or converted to biofuels is simply not valid. There is a free market for grain, if people are hungry go buy the stuff ahead of the feedlots and biofuel digesters, or better go farming and grow it yourself.

That people fail to do so is not because someone is else being 'greedy' but because like managing our flocks and herds, even in a farming environment where nowhere near all the land is given over to grain production we must find regular use for our 2nd and 3rd grade crop.

For the rest of the whingers, if you don't like the way things are done, you're free to do better yourself. Go for it, any time you want. For my part I simply no longer have time for some of the crap that gets posted to these 'expert conversations'.

Maybe we should build walls around the already vastly overpopulated cities and force feed them a healthy diet finally, and an exercise regime, and work, instead of allowing them, as a consequence of wealth, a free choice in what they eat, then have to sit back watching them grow ugly, obese and lazy on the junk food they consume, breeding like so many grossly overweight rabbits.

Go talk to them guys, it will repair our market and allow us to produce high quality sustainable protein as a core environmental management and at once high value-adding wealth creation strategy.

We're no longer listening, we do what we can.