He doesn’t point out that these figures relate to chemical agriculture using artificial fertilisers and pesticides – practices that he later says he doesn’t support. I also made estimates for organic vegan agriculture with green manure being ploughed directly into the soil, and for organic husbandry in which green manure is fed to dairy cows whose manure is composted, while pigs and chickens are substantially fed on food waste. Both systems require about 6.5m hectares of arable land to provide a healthy diet for everyone in the country. The vegan system is slightly more efficient in its land use, while the livestock system provides a more varied diet.
Given the rising cost of artificial fertilisers, the need to stop using the fossil fuels from which they are made, and declining insect populations, the organic option is looking increasingly attractive.
He’s talking about trying to use less land for agriculture. And then recommends organic. Yields per acre in organic are lower. Therefore an organic system must use more land.
He covers this up by talking about “organic vegan” or “organic smallholding”. But that’s not the right way to study the effects of something. To check a variable you hold all other ones constant, then see what happens with your one variable.
Chemical veganism uses less land than organic vegtanism. Chemical smallholding less than organic smallholding. Organic just uses more land.