REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

Like Krizon points out, RIVAL, is that this wouldn't be the case - there would be far less land, not more. In order to replace the meat that had gone from the diet more crops & vegetables would have to be grown which would take up far more land than that which is used now for grazing & feeding the animals. It certainly wouldn't be natural land either - in growing a large crop, it is more efficient to have one large "field" rahter than lots of small ones, the result of which (as Krizon says) is to pull out hedgerows & trees to make a larger area of cultivated land.

[QUOTE="Shadow Leader, post: 2037315, member: 65043"] Like Krizon points out, RIVAL, is that this wouldn't be the case - there would be far less land, not more. In order to replace the meat that had gone from the diet more crops & vegetables would have to be grown which would take up far more land than that which is used now for grazing & feeding the animals. It certainly wouldn't be natural land either - in growing a large crop, it is more efficient to have one large "field" rahter than lots of small ones, the result of which (as Krizon says) is to pull out hedgerows & trees to make a larger area of cultivated land. [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?