Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
Except there are millions upon millions of acres used for grazing
that would not or could not be used for grain......thus allowing food
production where none would exist......There are many more millions
of acres used for hay, alfalfa etc. that are not ideal or useful for
other food production.

We as well have no significant or appreciable need for more grain
production as the world has never been as dependably well
fed.....optimum calorie production is really only significant at the
sustenance existence level.....thankfully we are not. Rod

I disagree with *all* of these assertions, from a variety of povs,
much too lengthy to go into on ahr.
Two points, however.
1. There are myriads of other problems with cattle production.
2. You choose to ignore efficiency issues simply because they are not
problems *now*?

How Bush-ian. Think.... oil??????

AND,
That assumes they are NOT problems now, which I also disagree with.
Chemical fertilizers are about as good a long term solution for crops
as Lunesta is for sleep disorder.

Balderdash! I'm in Texas and in some cattle-grazing areas you can't grow
dirt! Even the lizards are stunted.

Do you think cattle are feeding in places similar to Kentucky horse farms?
Bah! There's ten feet between each pitiful clump of vegetation! Watch your
next "Western" closely - are the cowboys standing in fields of clover? Are
they having shoot-outs in the strawberry patch? Do the cattle stampede
through forests of mighty redwoods?

IT'S DIRT!

Raw, dry, sterile, DIRT. And not very good dirt, either.

But to the basic question: Vegetables are not food. Vegetables are what food
eats.