If I manage to find again the thesis I read, I'll forward it to you.

Essentially, on a global scale, any food item is produced on a large enough scale to accomodate large waste of resources, including meat. Money is being thrown out to produce that is lost in chain of value. The criticism towards unrealistic standards set by governments is brutal. The call is for cutting back on production, by slowly cutting back on subsidizing. There is a very poor management of resources at play.

I'll give a simple example from my country: we routinely pay heavy fines for exceeding milk production quotas, in large part because most of that milk comes from one region ideal for livestock but little else. Grass grows plentiful but standard crops produce poorly due to salty winds.

Meanwhile, other countries try to raise their domestic production, regardless of proper conditions for it. In a simple world, we would produce to supply those countries because we have surplus we cannot consume (regardless how much cheese we make). The end result? Producers are downsizing herds and even throwing away milk, as they are barred from even giving it away, when they can't sell any more. How ridiculous is this?

Raising pidgeons and rabbits (and guinea pigs, if people are not squeamish) is feasible on a very small scale. Again, another habit lost in the aftermath of the second war.

Pyrolitic inceneration is a thing and I worked with an engineer that tried to sell one plant to Angola, for thermal use of used tyres and urban residues. One very interesting feature was a special oxygen forced fed high temperature chamber to melt metals for easier separation. It was obviously expensive to build but it could remove a lot of waste from landfills. The downfall of the project: radical environmental groups.

Again, I'll end with my costumary: things are bad but not as bad as we are forced to think.