If you reduce meat production, you'll hike up prices, likely pricing out those with autoimmune diseases that barely survive already. So technically you are true like in "you can still eat meat in theory", but in practice those folks won't be able. Now where is the good faith in that argument?

You're saying a lot of stuff and I'm going to need more evidence to be convinced as to your position. For what reason would meat prices increase if people ate less meat?

You are right that it can be done badly, as can many other things. I'd say you are actually arguing against badly regulated animal farming (especially since you mention the US), rather than animal farming per se.

You'd need to cite some sources for that. And explain where the millions of tons of animal manure go.

Here in Northern Europe 100% of manure from housed animals is used, either spread as manure or, increasingly, used for biomethane

That's the wrong statistics to look it - 100% of waste coffee is used. They already have it, good management will figure out a way to use it.

But you cannot make an argument that we have to keep drinking coffee because fertiliser industry will collapse without waste coffee.

There are thousands of studies about impacts of intensive animal faming on landscape, economy, health and society in general, they are all negative. This was settled like 40 years ago.

You said

> Only a small percentage of manure is reused as fertiliser because transporting it is expensive, and messy

That's straight up false, for Northern Europe anyway.