This reply feels a bit tangential. The amount of land taken to raise livestock is a small fraction of the land used to grow their feed. You discuss the lack of

This reply feels a bit tangential. The amount of land taken to raise livestock is a small fraction of the land used to grow their feed. You discuss the lack of nuance with respect to the former, but OP was talking about the latter. The land taken for raising animals hadn't even entered OP's equation yet, and can only strengthen their point. I think the confusion comes from the term free-range meat, which (at least in the US) is a marketing term far removed from what any normal person would consider "free range". It could be -- and often is -- just a barn with a fenced outdoor opening small enough that it amortizes to a few square inches of "free range" land per animal. Many of whom will never get there because they die of various kinds of nastiness before they make it to the opening. The percentage of human-raised animals who are truly "free range" and roam grasslands in any meaningful sense begins with a decimal point. Cut the per-head subsidies and you cut the incentive to singularly maximize body count at the expense of all potential benefits of free-roaming animals.