A few things here, some to other posts upstream of yours. 1) There is absolutely no shortage of arable land. None. Even with the immense amount of "the best

A few things here, some to other posts upstream of yours. 1) There is absolutely no shortage of arable land. None. Even with the immense amount of "the best growing land ever" being covered with cities, for cities formed where the living / land was good, there is an incredible amount of farming land purposefully fallow. In the EU, people are paid not to farm. In Canada, land use is restricted by quotas on who and how land can be used. Market pressures are used elsewhere. I can't overstress how much land is just not being used. This has a secondary benefit -- if times get "tough", environmental, or just many dry seasons, fallow land can be brought into use. This is vital, for this is what prevents wars! 2) We currently through away massive amounts of food, due to spoilage. Many different discussions about this, but I've seen numbers from 33% to 50% lost in silos. Again, this is what prevents war. Starvation. You don't plant crops, and decide "OK, I need $x food per person, I'll plant $y crops." Pests are cyclical, and even with pesticides, take a toll. Water (rain) is random, and too much is just as bad as too little. How cool or hot, how sunny or cloudy, all effect output. So, we must grow excess crops in order to keep people reliably fed. 3) Due to the above, and how much corn, and others are redirected into fuel manufacturing, the problem feeding people isn't food supply, it's "Will they pay us for our food". Almost every year, the above spoiled food just rots. More is thrown away. Why? Pay me or I won't give you things." Right or wrong, that's the reality of it. We could feed, if we really wanted to, 100 billion people, including meat, without even going to advanced farming methods. And population growth looks to be, soon, on a downward* trend. We've reached peak people. 4) But...!, I'll try to answer some 'buts'. * crop rotation, and the science behind it, including soil testing is well understood. It often isn't done, because crop $x is worth good money, and $y is worth meh, but without fertilizer this is the way to go. And it works. Well. It's all about cost here. * cattle can easily graze, and there is almost unlimited land here. The real issue with cattle is grain feed, combined with petro-chemicals (fertilizers) to grow that grain. That is where "cattle = bad". Many places outside of the US do indeed grass/free graze feed. There is absolutely no environmental cost here. If those cattle didn't exist, then wildlife would grow abundant, and feed instead. Only through some false, artificial means, eg humans fencing off land, and then killing anything which intrudes, prevents everything from rabbits, to goats, deer, etc from eating that grass. * meat is the most environmentally friendly way to transport energy, due to its density. Trains space, boat space, is often not about weight, but space. Grain takes a lot more than just meat. * the problems which are cited in this article are really simply put. A cow, sheep, goat, etc does all the work for you, of collecting energy. Grow your own meat, and you must supply all that energy! When it comes to free-range cattle, nothing could be more energy efficient for making meat.