Carracci - The Butchers Shop - 1583
Actually the largest feed producing area I worked in grew alfalfa for the dairy industry because it was a good rotation for their potato crops. Are you now going to boycott potatoes as well?
Watch the rescue video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IkwE8tHBAs
Lot's of great info on how much more resources it takes to raise animals for food than plants at Wikipedia. I know, it's just Wikipedia, but you can follow the primary sources at the bottom to verify everything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production
I already watched this video on another posting you made - what does it have to do with crop rotation for potatoes?
The fact is that over two-thirds of the feed fed to animals consists of substances that are either undesirable or completely unsuited for human food. Thus, by their ability to convert inedible plant materials to human food, animals not only do not compete with the human rather they aid greatly in improving both the quantity and the quality of the diets of human societies. (2)
As to the land use also answered there.
If a large number of people switched to vegetarianism, the demand for meat in the United States and Europe would fall, the supply of grain would dramatically increase, but the buying power of poor [starving] people in Africa and Asia wouldn't change at all.
The result would be very predictable -- there would be a mass exodus from farming. Whereas today the total amount of grains produced could feed 10 billion people, the total amount of grain grown in this post-meat world would likely fall back to about 7 or 8 billion. The trend of farmers selling their land to developers and others would accelerate quickly. (4)
In other words, there would be less food available for the world to eat. Furthermore, the monoculture of grains and legumes, which is what would happen if animal husbandry were abandoned and the world relied exclusively on plant foods for its food, would rapidly deplete the soil and require the heavy use of artificial fertilizers, one ton of which requires ten tons of crude oil to produce (5).
Table 1 presents some statistics that are ignored by those who would suggest that we can no longer afford the luxury of animal foods. Only about one-third of the land area of the world is classified as agricultural. Thus, roughly two-thirds of the land area of the world is not suited for any sort of agricultural use because it is covered by cites, mountains, deserts, swamps, snow, etc. Of the 35 percent that can be devoted to agriculture, less than one-third (or about 10% of the total land area) can be cultivated and produce plant products that the human can digest. The remaining two-thirds of the world's agricultural land is covered by grass, shrubs or other plants that only ruminant animals can digest. Thus, the inefficiency of animals is not a major concern since they represent the only way these plants can be converted to human food. As the human population of the world increases, it is likely that we will be forced to depend more and more on ruminant animals to meet the increased demands for food.
Sorry, but neither the Weston Price Foundation nor the Vegetarian Myth are very good sources of information.
The Vegetarian Myth was written by someone with no background in science, nutrition, ecology or any other relevant field. It is filled with factual errors and bad sources. Lots of sites have debunked that trash book. Here is one of them: http://vegetarianmythmyth.wordpress.com/
Weston Price Foundation was likewise founded by a person with no scientific or nutrition background or any other relative field. They have also been thoroughly debunked by actual nutritionists and scientists. Here is one: http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/debunking-diet-myths-weston-pr...
Seriously, don't just look shit up online. Check the sources. See what people with actual credentials have to say. Check the facts. Here are some to get you started:
“Meat-Eater’s Guide to Climate Change and Health”
Available online at: http://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/meateaters/pdf/report_ewg_meat_e...
“Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and
Production Priority Products and Materials”
Available online at: http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1262xPA-PriorityProd...
“Livestock’s Long Shadow”
Available online at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm
“Putting Meat on The Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America”
Available online at: http://www.ncifap.org/
I believe I provided more than enough resources to back up the point that the WPF is wrong.
Regarding the Okie State stat from 1995: the Livestock's Long Shadow link I provided from 2006 actually does take into account marginal lands for grazing. It concludes that introducing grazing animals into marginal lands increases erosion and threatens biodiversity.
Overgrazing by livestock is the leading cause of desertification worldwide. Eventually the grasses are consumed by the livestock, the soil erodes and the land becomes a desert. In Africa, this has been going on for centuries. During Roman times, northern Africa was the granary of the Empire, much as Kansas and Nebraska are for the United States today. But after northern Africa was devastated by pastoral nomads and their herds of cattle in the sixth century, it gradually became a barren wasteland. The march of the desert southward has been amply documented — always preceded, curiously enough, by herds of cattle and other livestock.
No infact 2 of your links give information supporting WPFs conclusion that Monocultural farming is in fact bad just as described. They simply add to that conclusion that large monoculture livestock farms are just as bad. I dont disagree with that conclusion.
And BTW just because your cult dislikes The Vegetarian Myth doesnt make it debunked. The woman who wrote that has no been discredited and her sources are widely available. Most of the book is autobiographical so im not sure how you can debunk something that is personal experience.
People will never stop believing in gods so you might as well not be an atheist.