Please do call me Tom -- we all respect each other here so special titles of respect are unnecessary.
I agree, making the slaughter of animals for food less cruel and disrespectful is a big step in the right direction -- a necessary step because you cannot get to step 2 until you have first taken step 1 -- nevertheless, though it makes the problem less horrible, it does not solve the problem. The problem is humans violently trampling another beings free will when there are perfectly satisfactorily alternatives that uphold the health, vitality, integrity, and free will of all the beings involved.
Though we as a culture have many strong beliefs attached to care and handling of dead bodies, from the big picture, what happens to a discarded physical form whether it's human or cow, is irrelevant. However, the attitudes and intents of the living toward those deceased is very relevant. Because we in PMR so strongly associate an individual with their body we mistakenly think that our respect/love for the deceased being should be transferred to the carcass left behind. In these beliefs, the dead body is only a symbol of the individual that once inhabited it -- any symbol-object, by itself, has no intrinsic importance -- the ideas and feelings (all nonphysical) that the symbol embodies carry all of the significance and importance. Don't confuse the symbol with what it symbolizes (we have a tendency to do that all the time). From a big picture perspective, there is nothing immoral about snacking on mom's dead body after she is gone, however there is much personal and cultural belief, ego attachment, as well as local law that makes that an exceptionally bad and inappropriate idea for those in our culture. (Think of Heinlein's man from mars in "A Stranger In A Strange Land")
Next: The meat eating vegetarian human vulture. Consider A, an ethical vegetarian, goes out to dinner with his significant other B. B, not a vegetarian, orders baked chicken. Now B has just contributed to the demand for meat since the restaurant will now order another chicken from its supplier, causing that supplier to kill another chicken. At this point (after B has been served) it does not matter one iota what happens to B's chicken - the demand has been registered - eat it, bury it with a sacred ceremony, give it away - doesn't matter as far as the demand for chicken meat goes. Halfway through the meal, B is too full to eat another bite. B offers A the chicken that has not been touched. A can eat the chicken knowing that doing so is in no way contributing to the future slaughter of chickens. Another example (not as simple and straightforward as the first, with perhaps a tinge of grey depending on how one defines the details): A goes to B's annual office xmass party buffet where several hundred people (none of which A knows) eat, drink, dance, and socialize in the holiday spirit as they wander about the facility. Every year they serve the same amount of the same things (some of which are meat) at the same place in the same way. Again, A (the meat eating vegetarian human vulture) can eat the meat knowing that doing so is in no way contributing to the future slaughter of animals because A realizes that eating meat is not the problem - killing animals to eat them when it is not even vaguely necessary to do so is the problem. There are many other such real world examples where a meat eating vegetarian human vulture can eat meat without contributing to the abuse of other sentient beings.
Don't let beliefs, habits, and passions, rule your behavior - it is only your intent expressed by your responsibility to do the right thing as best you know how that can raise or lower the quality of your consciousness. Refraining from eating your recently deceased mother or purposely eating a recently deceased chicken does not automatically raise or lower the quality of your consciousness - however both are likely to resonate with your cultural beliefs and habits. Likewise, believing the eating of meat to be immoral because you associate that action with the unnecessary killing of sentient beings (which is immoral) is to confuse two things that are culturally, and sometimes causally, connected -- but are not always or necessarily connected.