My mistake. But the argument I gave applies the same to crops as it does to land.

What are the factors that may cause a vegan world to require an equal or larger amount of land? I've seen several studies claiming a vegan diet requires less land, and have seen none to the contrary. I'd be happy to link the studies, if needed.

The 2nd quote is from your original response involving less/more land which is what I am assuming you're referring to. I don't see anything in your second response that states we would have to grow less crops if we all went vegan. My original comment was that I don't believe we can easily say that you would need more or less crops if we all went vegan because there are far too many variables to account for to make such a statement.

(Keyword being easily. I understand there are studies and models out there that prove one way or another that it could happen. Call me a skeptic but even if I could find more models proving it would take more crops I would take it with a grain of salt.)

If you don't know, then ask questions. Don't imply my claims are wrong.

I'm not going to assume you don't know the answer nor did I ever say your claims were wrong. My statement was in regards to the difficulty and knowledge needed to predict the potential impact large scale environmental changes would have on two sections of agriculture.

'The study you have linked allows for a carrying capacity of 735 million people in the US on a vegan diet. If we were likely to cross that population threshold in the near future, I think discussions on carrying capacity issues for a vegan diet would be valid. However we are nowhere close to reaching a population of 735 million in the US, so it's not a real problem.'

Frankly I put no credence in the study because it doesn't mean anything. Any single diet we pick would sustain us until at least 2050 if population growth stays the same in the U.S. and the maximum capacity for many of the diets we will probably never hit.