Please also explain how any large monoculture crop is a net gain for diversity?

> Evidence for that rather large claim?

While most cows in Brazil are grass-fed, about half are raised on former rainforest:

"Nearly 50% of Brazilian livestock are raised in fields that used to be rainforest."[0,1]

"Most cows in Brazil, the world’s largest beef exporter, are grass-fed."[2]

See also:

How beef demand is accelerating the Amazon’s deforestation and climate peril[3]:

> Cattle ranchers in the Brazilian Amazon — the storied rainforest that produces oxygen for the world and modulates climate — are aggressively expanding their herds and willing to clear-cut the forest and burn what’s left to make way for pastures. As a result, they’ve become the single biggest driver of the Amazon’s deforestation, causing about 80 percent of it, according to the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.

Cattle Ranching in the Amazon Region[4]:

> Cattle ranching is the largest driver of deforestation in every Amazon country, accounting for 80% of current deforestation rates. Amazon Brazil is home to approximately 200 million head of cattle, and is the largest exporter in the world, supplying about one quarter of the global market. Low input cost and easy transportation in rural areas make ranching an attractive economic activity in the forest frontier; low yields and cheap land encourage expansion and deforestation. Approximately 450,000 square kilometers of deforested Amazon in Brazil are now in cattle pasture. Cattle ranching and soy cultivation are often linked as soy replaces cattle pasture, pushing farmers farther into the Amazon.

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/meat-consumption-linked-to-t...

[1] http://www.cbra.org.br/portal/downloads/publicacoes/rbra/v42...

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-12-17/saving-th...

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/27/how-beef-...

[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20180928055440/https://globalfor...

> It sounds like you are suggesting non-animal agriculture kills or displaces more animals than animal agriculture.

Animal agriculture is better for biodiversity than crop monocultures. I understand that the truth can be shocking for some people, but there are dozens of ecological studies pointing to the environmental value of pastures and meadows, specially as ecotones.

As the initial plan to demonize cattle failed, now you are silently replacing "non-animal agriculture" by "rainforests" as a straw man to attack the original claim. Sorry, but this was not the point that we were discussing.

"Non-animal agriculture", also known as "Agriculture", has replaced happily as many rainforest hectares as cattle, if not more. Take a look to the fate of Indonesian rainforests

The reason is simple: to produce the same amount of energy (and protein) with livestock as you would with crops, you have to use orders of magnitude more resources and you affect the environment orders of magnitude more: you use more fuel, release more greenhouse gases, use more water, use more land area, destroy more soil, et.c.

And while it might be true that one hectare used for grazing might be more biodiverse than one hectare used for, your example, soybeans. But 85 percent of the world's soybean crop is processed into meal and vegetable oil, and virtually all of that meal is used in animal feed.

I think you need to look up the meaning of the expression "straw man". And about the rainforests: Tropical rainforests are the most biologically diverse terrestrial ecosystems in the world, and right now, huge areas of that rainforests are destroyed for the land to be used to raise cattle.