This may be a complicated question, but here it goes. Going through debates surrounding anarchism, it seems that a vocal majority of anarchists agree that any form of farming that involves animals is unethical due to functioning as a form of domination (in this case, of non-human beings by humans), and that becoming vegan or at least vegetarian is the most sensible compromise to take. The criticism of meat farming as we know it in the current capitalist system is fair, because the conditions most for-profit farms, even those that are "approved" by governmental systems, are horrible and inhumane. Liberating animals from these conditions is indeed the most logical thing to do. But, what happens to them after? Couldnt rehousing at least some of these animals in ethical, regenerative farming frameworks the most ethical thing to do? Small scale farming, if done and planned correctly, can give humane, pleasant lives to farm animals and even make them positive influences for the environment, so couldn't discouraging all non-vegan farming even if it's existence is harmless compared to the factory farming standard that exists today be harmful? The context to this doubt may be slightly selfish, but it's that my food choices are limited due to neurological conditions (autism and hypersensitivity to many textures mainly tbh); Without the occasional choice to eat meat i could suffer nutritional deficiencies, so could there be a compromise where the existence of this need could be fulfilled without unnecessary suffering? Is, for example, raising rabbits for meat in humane living conditions and killing them painlessly unethical no matter what? Or is this simply incompatible with anarchy?