The report goes on to say that in terms of land use, a veg diet is less efficient than one with a little meat. The reason? Fruits, vegetables and grains must be grown on high-quality cropland, while ruminant animals are supported by lower quality, but more widely available, land that can support pasture and hay. Thus, although vegetarian diets in New York state may require less land per person, they use more high-valued land. Meaning, while meat increases land-use requirements, diets including modest amounts of meat can feed more people than some higher fat vegetarian diets.
Can it really be so? Or is it only for New Yorkers? What if everyone in the whole world were to eat moderate amounts of meat, will all the pastures in the world be able to support this low-meat diet? I really doubt so. If the pastures were to be used intensively, there will be the problem of overgrazing and may well lead to desertification. Besides, I wondered if these pastures were created by logging to meet the demands of meat, if that's the case, wouldn't it be better to convert these pastures back to forests? And lastly, if every one were to go vegan, will there be a need to increase food amounts to feed everyone, could the land be more efficiently used in other ways such as produce renewable energy?
I am still very glad the researchers came up with this report which further bring to awareness the sustainablilty of a vegetarian diet.
News at this link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008130203.htm