This $70M is compensation for failed chemical farming. Other farmers will follow if they do not change to biological farming to increase soil carbon and soil water storage.

$70 million is a tiny fraction, of the true cost, of the unsustainably cheap food. Australians have enjoyed for the last two generations.

Mangiri: please check your facts before you comment. KRUDD: please stop forcing farmers out of agriculture. You & Peter Garrett may think you are doing Australia a favour by returning land to National Parks & "original" condition but imported food will be very very expensive. Better that these farmers are left with some form of compensation than nothing at all. If KRUDD & his band of merry men continue with this philosophy of despising agriculture and by association, private ownership of land, Australia's economy, umemployment and demographics will be sorely tested.

In the face of a looming global food crisis, why is the government helping farmers "leave the land"...I would think helping them become sustainable would be more important. Or is this exit grant just a renamed retirement plan.

Farmers, I have been a farmer all my life - beef cattle. This wonderful country of ours has lived off the land for many decades. I cannot digest the fact that we may be going down the track of imported beef and mutton. Mr Rudd wake up if your farmers are not spending and small business is not spending this country will go to the wall. All other countries subsidise their farmers to keep their produce in their country why not Australia. How do you expect us to keep going when we are getting the same price for our produce we were receiving in 1983 our expenses have risen by up to 500% but we are proud people - all farmers will stand tall for our country just to get quality produce that we know in quality controlled not like the imports. Come on Mr Rudd wake up get your hench men to open their eyes. Keep up the good work Peter, we are all behind you.

Unfortunately this appears to be helping farmers but in fact in some cases it is has the potential to cause family rifts and the fine print isn't spelt out until after you sell your farm. If the farming operation is a partnership all partners must sell all their land and rural assetts before anyone can claim the subsidy. So effectively if you have a family farm trying to support two families but that can support one family it has to be sold to an outside party including all stock and plant so that one partner can get the relocation grant. If the one partner buys the other's share they are not eligible because the farming operation is deemed to be continuing. IS this fair?