Mithus, you are confusing the efficiency argument with the morality argument. That is the biggest problem with your approach.

If you want to talk about whether the current paradigm of industrial animal farming makes economic sense, then a discussion can be had. It is true that there are segments of the industry that are inefficient, simply because the overall cost structure allows them to be.

Its your abolitionist/moral approach that fails and makes no sense.

I read the PDF you linked, and AGAIN - the writer says that " The position of the animal rights people is that we have no moral justification for using animals" etc etc... yet supplies no logic on why that should be the case. He says moral significance is independent of cognitive abilities.. but yet again gives no indication on WHY that should be the case.

Its all just how these people "feel" about the matter.

They try to assert that

1) animals have natural rights

2) that humans are morally wrong to deny animals of those natural rights

all without ever explaining why the animals have such rights, let alone why humans should face consequences for abrogating those rights.

Theyre stated purpose is to outlaw using animals. In other words they want to use the force of govt , guns and batons and jails, to ultimately enforce their "feelings" on the rest of mankind. I find this completely abhorrent and utterly despicable.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)