You are shifting the argument by cherry picking Australian beef production (vs meat production in general). Overwhelmingly most meat production is fed using harvest from cultivated land, hence the claims are irrelevant to the general discussion in addition to being factually uncredible.
About the questionable facts: the 25x claim is not substantiated in any way. It doesn't in any way substantiate why use of fertilizers to grow plants for human consumption would be worse than growing grass for the equivalent nutritional value of cows.
Lastly, even if you ignore the irrelevance and the bad claims, it concludes that ethically you should only eat rangeland grown meat and kangaroos, a clear counterargument for the usual meat eater diet!
You are shifting the argument by cherry picking Australian beef production (vs meat production in general).
Yes, though not intentionally - this is just an article I read recently so it came up in my memory. I believe, though, that a lot of small animals die because of farming grains everywhere in the world, not only in Australia. Other factors, indeed, may vary greatly.
Lastly, even if you ignore the irrelevance and the bad claims, it concludes that ethically you should only eat rangeland grown meat and kangaroos, a clear counterargument for the usual meat eater diet!
I agree - if one's aim is to minimize the number of animal deaths or the amount of suffering, that seems to be the answer.
About the questionable facts: the 25x claim is not substantiated in any way. It doesn't in any way substantiate why use of fertilizers to grow plants for human consumption would be worse than growing grass for the equivalent nutritional value of cows.
Lastly, even if you ignore the irrelevance and the bad claims, it concludes that ethically you should only eat rangeland grown meat and kangaroos, a clear counterargument for the usual meat eater diet!