I agree with you that arable agriculture negatively impacts animals, and that we need to be asking questions about this. This might include championing less harmful forms of arable agriculture, and/or championing atypical forms of meat production (such as farming oysters). I've defended both of these things elsewhere.

However, the harm in arable agriculture is not a good argument for most forms of pastoral agriculture. Most forms of pastoral agriculture rely on arable agriculture to feed farmed animals, so concern for 'field deaths' actually provides further argument to move away from pastoral agriculture. One possible exception are certain limited forms of 'grass fed' beef. That's what Steven Davis defends (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1025638030686). Of course, the kind of diet Davis is defending is basically vegan with a limited amount of beef. There's no room for pork, chicken, eggs, etc.

Unfortunately, Davis's argument doesn't really work, either. That's for several reasons, but the most important is that his numbers don't really add up. (A bunch of people have made this point. One of the earliest was Gaverick Matheny -- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026354906892.) If we're serious about reducing harm to animals, grass-fed beef doesn't seem particularly promising, either.

I'm not sure what to make of your scepticism about cultivated meat. Yes, there are people who hope to make a profit out of this, but if you think that there aren't already people making megabucks out of producing meat, you've been mislead. There are also lots of people in the cultivated meat space who are advocating open source science, precisely because they want to change the world for the better. I'm not saying the current cultivated meat industry is perfect, but I am saying that it could be part of deeply desirable vision for the future, and we've reason to hope it might be.

As for the safety of cultivated meat: Yes, there are more tests to be done and questions to be asked about safety, as there is for any new way to produce meat. (And let's be clear -- assuming a North American/Western European perspective -- that the meat we eat today, and the means we use to produce it, are very, very different from those prevalent even a century ago. And we certainly haven't been eating the QUANTITY of meat we eat today for very long at all. Beware of universalising our current practices.) But it sounds like you've already made your mind up your mind that cultivated meat isn't safe, and findings to the contrary are the result of motivated reasoning. I'm not really sure why you've done that, and not really sure how I can respond.