That's incorrect. A reduction in suffering is preferable even if it doesn't result in the absence of it.

Why is a reduction in suffering preferable? How do you even measure suffering? Are you certain that plants and fungi don't suffer? This all seems highly subjective.

More than 50 billion animals (land and sea) are killed each year for food in the United States, alone. Farmed animals must be fed to bring them to slaughter. If there was a reduction in farmed animals being eaten for food, far less agricultural land would be needed to feed people directly. Yes, wild animals in farmed land still would be killed, but far fewer. Not having or understanding compassion for living creatures is not something I can help you with. Cheers.

In the US at least we have sufficient agricultural land.

Why do you think I need help? That seems highly presumptuous. Asking questions about the fundamental nature of suffering hardly implies a lack of compassion. Perhaps someone can help you learn how to avoid drawing illogical conclusions.

If it became technically possible to force all animals to eat a synthetic, fortified, vegetable-based diet even if they are carnivorous, would you endorse the idea?

Humans constantly try to distance themselves from nature even though at the basest level, we are still unavoidably part of it, as are all biological organisms on Earth.

"each pound of animal flesh requires between four and thirteen pounds of plant matter to produce, depending upon species and conditions. Given that amount of plant death, a belief in the sentience of plants makes a strong pro-vegan argument"

https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/plants-are-alive

https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/vegans-kill-animals-too