> However, most animals are raised on land that is not highly productive for crop agriculture. For example dry areas where most crops will deplete water resour

> However, most animals are raised on land that is not highly productive for crop agriculture. For example dry areas where most crops will deplete water resources or very hilly areas that are more prone to erosion and harder to operate tractors on But a key point is around crop diversity, and the monoculture mode of production. From the original page: > The world has over 50,000 edible plants. However, just three of them, rice, maize, and wheat, provide over 50 per cent of the world's food energy intake. So for any dry hilly area being used as pasture, and which is sufficient to support grazing animals _without additional feed_, is it really the case that there are _no_ crops, or combinations of crops which could work there? Or is it just that we should do a better job of supporting farmers discovering other ways of making their land productive? > Raising crops means completely altering the environment to an unnatural state Raising crops _can_ mean that, but regenerative agriculture can instead focus on working with the environment. Certainly beyond organic, no-till methods, permaculture, "natural farming" are on a spectrum that can deliberately involve and support more complex ecosystems. I think it's in kind of bad faith to respond with "but agriculture as most commonly practiced can be harmful and ineffective on some pasture land" in the context of an article arguing that we should radically shift how we practice agriculture.