What strange comment to make.
I won't reply to every comment on this thread, I just came to see what reasons people were saying. Someone commented they have no reasons, so I provided some. You don't know me or have a reason to expect me to reply to everything, so I don't understand why you're 'surprised'?
Anyway, I don't have time to read the whole PDF, would be better if you can give me some direct quotes and I can reply to them individually, I can't dissect every PDF thrown at me. I can also send you some pro-vegan documentaries and statistics too, will you watch them?
"My main issue with it is the fact that we'd need far more land space to be able to grow enough produce, which means more forests are likely to be cut down, which would then mean more animals are having their habitats destroyed. The land required for all these crops to replace beef and lamb is about 1,352 kilo hectares (kha), compared with about 135 kha to supply concentrates for ruminant meat now."
It think you're forgetting that we feed the animals; we're turning more food into less food. If you cut out the middle part then we won't need to grow more produce as a whole, we'll grow less.