There is ample space for the animals to roam, and they are shielded from the elements and predators.
As a result of sustainable rationing, a family doesn't eat meat each night but maybe once a week or month.
Do you truly consider this scenario oppressive?
Yes, because you have violated the free agency of animals and their own right to exist unmolested by humans. It's the treatment of sentient creatures as mere commodities, justifying the means for an end, that's the source of great calamity and suffering. Non-human persons aren't on this planet for the satisfaction of humans. To think so is to basically be stuck in Christian-inspired attitudes which are old and deprecated.
The concept that using animals for any form of resource is oppressive, even if a fair bargain is struck and the animal's needs are met, is highly idealistic in it's own ways, even if they aren't related to Christian values.
People have been cooperating with other animals for much, much longer than Christianity has been around. So yes, that notion is very, very old. I wouldn't say it is depreciated, however.
Animals also commit infanticide and lick their own buttholes. What we do to animals is not cooperation. It's a holocaust.
I'm just glad that a good portion of humanity has the intelligence to understand which evolved behaviors are and aren't appropriate. Maybe eventually we'll all figure it out. Your argument just doesn't stand up because, like humans, some animals have homicidal tendencies and others don't.
The global corporate food industry is a behemoth, but I still don't understand how the scenario I provided to you above, or sanctuaries, or zoos, are "holocaust". Please elaborate.
Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(biology)