I watched a programme on the good old teev some time ago which, amongst other things, assessed the protein level of meat from free-range farm animals as opposed to meat from intensively-farmed animals.
It was my understanding, from this programme, that the protein level of meat from free-range animals was vastly superior to that of intensively-farmed meat.
If the content of this programme was indeed correct,and I can see no reason why it was not, there would be a need to produce far, far greater numbers of intensively-farmed animals than stated in this article purely to address the required levels of protein cited by the author.
On this basis, if free-range farming was utilised instead of intensive farming, the amount of meat required by consumers would drop as the level of protein would be able to be supplied through smaller meal portions.
It would seem to my perhaps idealist self that it would be far more efficient, protein-wise, to have areas of free-range animal production allocated to some of the green belt areas surrounding most cities. Surely it would be more pleasant to walk through indigenous-lightly-treed paddocks containing cows (or pigs or chooks)than to walk through a grassed park containing imported breeds of plants or flowers which, although pleasing to the eye, have very little added-on value.
As I grow older, I continually try to ascertain the justifications put forward by those with vested interest in outcomes of that for which they argue, regardless of the subject - and if ever I saw a vested interest it was found in the argument put forward by the author of this article, of whom I know nothing.