Kale!

[Alex Libman]

I'll have my kale after the cow or pig has incorporated it, thank you.

Passing your nutrients through another animal's body - how inefficient, irrational, and downright disgusting!  This process does increase the density of a few nutrients, but in a modern overfed world that tends to do more harm than good, and the very process can be accomplished by more modern, technological means (ex. soy protein isolate) a lot more cleanly, controllably, and efficiently.  The higher up the food chain you are, the more you inherit of diseases, toxins, parasites, hormones, sterols, pus and other contaminants (i.e. pounds of animal urine and poo over your lifetime!), preservatives and sanitation chemicals / radiation, and other nasty things.

Plant-based foods already produce as much as 15x more protein per area of land than animal-based foods (and that's stacking sick grain-fed animals in tiny cages), but there's a long list of reasons why this number should grow very quickly.  Animal farming is sustained only through massive subsidies and government-imposed liability limitations without which it would be a lot less cost-effective than it is!  The worries over amino-acid combining that are used to handicap the measure of plant protein are over-hyped, and this is quickly becoming a non-issue thanks to better knowledge of food combining, food additives, and of course genetically engineered higher-protein amino-acid complete crops.  Advances in things like multi-story greenhouse farming, edible fungus and alge production, hydroponics, etc continue to make plant-based food production ever-more efficient!

Most importantly, human beings and plants exist in a symbiotic relationship, while modern man exists in a competitive relationship with all other animals (except perhaps a few samples of each species for scientific research).  Animals have hijacked human irrationalities for far too long!  Plants produce oxygen and consume CO2 (which would solve all "environmental issues" if they were severe enough to warrant it, which by far they are not - just pump CO2 into giant greenhouses and that's it, although all manufacturing will be moved to space long before that).  Animals consume our precious oxygen and produce CO2 and other environmental hazards (from both their ends).  A self-sufficient space station might literally have to be a hundred times larger if its occupants are carnivores, which means a vegan culture would be able to have much higher population per available resources, and thus a much higher level of economic and scientific attainment!

Living in a space station filled with plants like kale rather than pig-poop is also more hygienic, aesthetically pleasing, and smells a whole lot better too!

[Ed]

didn't read what you wrote too thoroughly, but

ruminants eat what we can't - fiber, in the form of grass. So when vegeterian-ish or locavores or whatever tell you that we could feed more people by not feeding livestock, it's not entirely true. When they feed grain to livestock, they often feed the whole plant. So they're (the cows) making more use of it than we would, since we can only get energy and nutrients from the grain part. From what I understand, cows are only "finished" (made plump) on feed lots - most of their lives they graze on unimproved, almost untended land in the midwest.

chickens also eat what we can't, in the sense that they can by themselves forage for little bugs and seeds and stuff that it would take too long for us big humans to go after to make it worth it.

Ditto pigs. They'll eat ANYTHING. You can feed them rotten food. They'll graze around a forest picking things up. Plus, they can eat acorns directly, while humans need to process them.


all these animals can increase the amount of food a society produces. Of course, it doesn't kick in when you feed them human-grade food that could otherwise go to humans, but the potential is there, and that's what those animals did and why they were domesticated and raised since time immemorial.

[Ed]

ugh, hate to type more but I feel like I have to be thorough

There are also issues with plant nutrition in some cases; the "nutrition facts" of plants can often make them seem more nutritious than they are. Often oxalates prevent your body from actually using the calcium plants provide, and there are often other things in plants that do similar things with other nutrients. I remember soybean having something like that, along with the effects it may have from its estrogen-like compounds, and amaranth, widely touted as having near-complete protein, it turns out has something that actually prevents the uptake of the protein - they don't know what it is yet, but the studies confirm it.

But if you like space-age type stuff, I introduce you to quorn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorn
It's artificialicious!
I bought some once and tried it, the texture is amazingly like that of meat.


Also, to pay tribute to the OT, kerguelen cabbage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerguelen_cabbage
can handle insane cold, and according to a tasting-review I read, quite palatable. Seeds can be bought. Doesn't need pollination to get more seeds

[Raineyrocks]

Embrace the kale-love, Rainey!

Yuk!   I wish I did like it because I know it's good for you, the other one I hate too is cauliflower.

[Raineyrocks]

I will have lots of Kale.




If ya take the K off the front.

 

[MaineShark]

This process does increase the density of a few nutrients, but in a modern overfed world that tends to do more harm than good, and the very process can be accomplished by more modern, technological means (ex. soy protein isolate) a lot more cleanly, controllably, and efficiently.

I wouldn't feed that crud to my animals, let alone eat it.

Animal farming is sustained only through massive subsidies and government-imposed liability limitations without which it would be a lot less cost-effective than it is!

Funny.  Only thing the government's ever done about my animal farming, is to try and stop me.  They've never given me any subsidies, or limited my liability in any way.  They're repeatedly harassed me, but that's about it.

Joe

[Alex Libman]

Hail to the Kale!

++ 

ruminants eat what we can't - fiber, in the form of grass.  [...]

I agree that animal farming had tremendous economic benefits in centuries past, when agricultural productivity wasn't that high (especially in harsher climates), population density was low, and letting animals graze on wild land was the best people could do to make that land productive.  The modern post-industrialized economy offers a lot more choices on how to use a particular piece of land, and using it for crops for direct human consumption (and especially greenhouses) is orders of magnitude more productive than animal farming (and especially the more expensive grass-fed kind).

All the natural resources in the universe belong to any Rational Economic Actors that can claim and utilize them for their benefit, and the market will decide when / where to grow grass and where to grow soy, kale, or hemp.  We've already reached a tipping point where meat consumption should be becoming significantly more expensive than plant-based foods, with first-world government subsidies temporarily making up the difference.  As people become wealthier they will be able to afford more meat, and global population will (unfortunately) begin to shrink a few decades from now, but the relative price difference between plant and animal foods will nonetheless continue to grow.

As I look toward the future, I don't see any scenarios where passing nutrients through an animal would continue make economic sense.  (Fermentation bacteria is not an "animal".)  This will apply to terrestrial large mammal meat production first, and to fish and insects last.  Robotized greenhouses can be a lot more efficient at making optimal use of resources than foraging animals, and the parts of plants that aren't consumed by humans can be more efficiently used for plastics, bio-fuels, fertilizers, and many other things.

There are also issues with plant nutrition in some cases; the "nutrition facts" of plants can often make them seem more nutritious than they are. Often oxalates prevent your body from actually using the calcium plants provide, and there are often other things in plants that do similar things with other nutrients. I remember soybean having something like that, along with the effects it may have from its estrogen-like compounds, and amaranth, widely touted as having near-complete protein, it turns out has something that actually prevents the uptake of the protein - they don't know what it is yet, but the studies confirm it.

Calcium, like other minerals, comes from neither plants nor animals, it merely passes through them.  It is an alkaline earth metal, and the fifth most abundant element by mass in both Earth's crust and seawater, and plenty of it can be mined in space as well.  We can easily extract calcium and other minerals and make sure our bodies get as much of it as we want.

Protein isn't a huge issue either, with limiting amino acids only being a significant problem for people on very monotone third-world diets consisting of low-protein grains and nutritionally inferior grass.  I eat lots of different beans / legumes, vegetables, grains, a few fruits, nuts, seeds, etc.  The average human body can only efficiently digest about 10 grams of protein per hour (maybe 20 if you're a huge bodybuilder), so a vegan who eats frequent meals might actually be getting more protein than a 3-meal-a-day meat-and-potatoes eater.  Nothing beats a nice big cup of pea soup with soy sauce to keep you warm during winter!

But if you like space-age type stuff, I introduce you to quorn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorn  It's artificialicious!

I'm a big fan of GE fungi, especially since it can be grown without sunlight (i.e. infinite basement levels below greenhouses, space stations that are far from the sun, etc).  However, at present, they don't exist in the same symbiotic relationship with humans the way chlorophyll-based plants do, and don't produce the same levels of micro-nutrients per cost.

Also, to pay tribute to the OT, kerguelen cabbage:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerguelen_cabbage  can handle insane cold, and according to a tasting-review I read, quite palatable. Seeds can be bought. Doesn't need pollination to get more seeds

Cabbage from the Kerguelen Islands?  Could that be the one thing that the French overseas empire has accomplished...  No, wait, even that was discovered first by the English.   

I can't seem to find any nutritional information for this particular species, but all green vegetables were not created equal, far from it.  Take a look at the the lutein list, for example - kale contains 842 times more than red raw cabbage (which is a lot more bitter), and other types of cabbage aren't even mentioned!  Comparing plain cabbage to kale by weight, our celebrated champ has 2.5 times more protein, 154 times more vitamin A, 3.3 times more vitamin C and calcium, 3.6 times more iron, etc.  (Though kale does cost about 50% more.)

Kale is also great for chronic over-eaters (which is the cause of a huge fraction of first-world health problems), because you can have a tiny meal and then munch on kale as much as you want until you feel full.  This only works with raw leafy vegetables, however, which take more energy to digest and take up a lot more space in the digestive tract.  Many leafy vegetables are slightly bitter, which really limits how much you'd want to eat them, but kale is one of the few nutrition champs that isn't bitter at all.

Funny.  Only thing the government's ever done about my animal farming, is to try and stop me.  They've never given me any subsidies, or limited my liability in any way.  They're repeatedly harassed me, but that's about it.

I understand, but your personal experience as a small farm / ranch owner isn't representative of the meat production industry as a whole, the vast majority of which is controlled by large companies with very deep ties with federal and state governments.



Recommended viewing on the limited liabilities issue: A River of Waste...  (Does this forum allow pirate BitTorrent links?)

[Alex Libman]

<agitation>

I've been trying to think up a new name for what I originally called "The Tax Resister Diet".  I didn't settle with the IRS or the state yet, but I did settle with the DMV (though I didn't start driving again) shortly after I was definitively crucified on the FTL BBS and realized that I have no moral support and I'm completely emotionally burned out and I have no strength to do any serious tax resistance all by myself...  Not sure if I'll settle with the tax fiends as well or when - eventually I'll run out of money and under-the-table freelance work connections and have no choice...  So this whole meme would need a new name.

One random thought is to call it the "Killin' Commies Diet", cause, you know, you can apply it to feed a lot more capitalist mercenaries per acre of land, and they'd be a lot healthier too.  That would also confront John's allegation that my love for kale is somehow incompatible with the killin' of commies - I think it complements it quite a bit.  And when you have a pile of commie corpses that is large enough, you can just grind it up and use it for kale fertilizer.  Mmmm, I wonder what effect commie blood will have of the taste and nutrient content of kale...  Looking forward to finding out!

One problem with that name is it's not really a "diet" as much as it is a "food philosophy", because it really did start with my interest in philosophy broadening from its original political and economic motivations to encompass fields like epistemology / metaphysics, aesthetics, and eventually (over)analysis of specific topics like literature, software, socks, sex, etc - including food as well.

So, how about...   Philosophy for Efficient Commie-Killin' Edible Resources?  Nah, doesn't roll off my tongue very well...  I'll give it more thought and report back later.



</agitation>

[MaineShark]

Funny.  Only thing the government's ever done about my animal farming, is to try and stop me.  They've never given me any subsidies, or limited my liability in any way.  They're repeatedly harassed me, but that's about it.

I understand, but your personal experience as a small farm / ranch owner isn't representative of the meat production industry as a whole, the vast majority of which is controlled by large companies with very deep ties with federal and state governments.



Recommended viewing on the limited liabilities issue: A River of Waste...  (Does this forum allow pirate BitTorrent links?)

Then your issue is with certain farming methods, not with meat.  Hardly rational to blame meat, just because some folks get subsidies.

Anyway, I'm an omnivore.  I evolved to be an omnivore.  Intentionally limiting my diet in silly ways makes no rational sense.  If I were going to, though, I'd be healthier eating nothing but meat, than I would eating nothing but plants.

Joe

[Alex Libman]

Then your issue is with certain farming methods, not with meat.  Hardly rational to blame meat, just because some folks get subsidies.

I don't have an "issue", I am simply discussing my food philosophy opinions, which I do believe to be rational, but you of course are free to disagree.

I've presented a whole list of reasons to avoid meat, the most significant ones being related to agricultural efficiency in a Galt's Gulch type scenario (which may be a space station someday).  Taste preferences aside, you can feed a lot more people from a given plot of land if you build greenhouses and grow food for human consumption, and you'll be less dependent on external suppliers, and the government thugs be able to make up fewer excuses to come and bother you.

And government subsidies do have an effect on meat producers who don't get them, because they affect prices in the market as a whole.

Anyway, I'm an omnivore.  I evolved to be an omnivore.

Most animals are omnivores to some degree.  Ruminants are an extreme case of adaptation to grass (which is why we eat them, and human selection helped increase this attribute), but you can't eat grass without also eating some bugs - many grass-fed animals actively seek them out, and some go a step further.  It used to be a secret of a winning racehorse to feed it eggs (with crunched-up shells) for better nutrition.  Most animals can handle the milk of certain other animals.  You get the idea.  Your stomach(s) might handle some things better than others, but once it's broken down calories are calories, minerals are minerals, etc.

Humans evolved from rodents and then monkeys on a diet where meat was very scarce, which is why evolution made it taste so good: to encourage you to spend the hours it takes to track animals, find bird nests, etc.  Those taste preferences came about before the advents of fire, modern agriculture, high-protein crops, B12 supplements, etc.  Evolution has also given us a brain to think and to alter ourselves in our rational self-interest.

Intentionally limiting my diet in silly ways makes no rational sense.

One doesn't have to be a fanatic (ex. I eat ~3 servings of fish or egg whites a week), but a plant-focused food philosophy has specific economic, health, and food security / liberty benefits.  The only downside is a purely emotional one.

If I were going to, though, I'd be healthier eating nothing but meat, than I would eating nothing but plants.

I agree that you can get all nutrients by passing them through an animal's body first, and your body will learn to make better use of animal fats instead of carbs, etc, but you most definitely will not be healthier.  Animal products contain a lot of very toxic things, in large quantities especially.

[MaineShark]

I don't have an "issue", I am simply discussing my food philosophy opinions, which I do believe to be rational, but you of course are free to disagree.

I've presented a whole list of reasons to avoid meat, the most significant ones being related to agricultural efficiency in a Galt's Gulch type scenario (which may be a space station someday).  Taste preferences aside, you can feed a lot more people from a given plot of land if you build greenhouses and grow food for human consumption, and you'll be less dependent on external suppliers, and the government thugs be able to make up fewer excuses to come and bother you.

I could build greenhouses and feed rabbits, then eat the rabbits.  Rabbits are pretty darn efficient at converting feed into meat, and they eat stuff that I wouldn't (but which grows far more easily than crops suitable for human food).

And government subsidies do have an effect on meat producers who don't get them, because they affect prices in the market as a whole.

Yeah, they lower them.  I could make more money selling meat, if the government butted out.

Anyway, I'm an omnivore.  I evolved to be an omnivore.

Most animals are omnivores to some degree.  Ruminants are an extreme case of adaptation to grass (which is why we eat them, and human selection helped increase this attribute), but you can't eat grass without also eating some bugs - many grass-fed animals actively seek them out, and some go a step further.  It used to be a secret of a winning racehorse to feed it eggs (with crunched-up shells) for better nutrition.  Most animals can handle the milk of certain other animals.  You get the idea.  Your stomach(s) might handle some things better than others, but once it's broken down calories are calories, minerals are minerals, etc.

Humans evolved from rodents and then monkeys on a diet where meat was very scarce, which is why evolution made it taste so good: to encourage you to spend the hours it takes to track animals, find bird nests, etc.  Those taste preferences came about before the advents of fire, modern agriculture, high-protein crops, B12 supplements, etc.  Evolution has also given us a brain to think and to alter ourselves in our rational self-interest.

And it's not in my rational self-interest to eat crud.  Phyto-estrogens, alone, are enough reason not to eat large amounts of soy.

Intentionally limiting my diet in silly ways makes no rational sense.

One doesn't have to be a fanatic (ex. I eat ~3 servings of fish or egg whites a week), but a plant-focused food philosophy has specific economic, health, and food security / liberty benefits.  The only downside is a purely emotional one.

Not seeing any of those benefits.  I can make more money selling meat, stay healthier eating and meat, make better use of land by growing crops that herbivores eat.  Many food animals eat plants that are, for the most part, weeds.  They don't require the level of effort needed to cultivate food crops.

If I were going to, though, I'd be healthier eating nothing but meat, than I would eating nothing but plants.

I agree that you can get all nutrients by passing them through an animal's body first, and your body will learn to make better use of animal fats instead of carbs, etc, but you most definitely will not be healthier.  Animal products contain a lot of very toxic things, in large quantities especially.

Really?  All those toxic substances that appear out of nowhere?  If the animal doesn't ingest them, where would they come from?  And if the animal were ingesting them, then stop feeding toxic substances to your animals.

Plants, on the other hand, produce all manner of toxins.  Oxylates, cyanide, etc.  And then many have phyto-hormones that are in high doses when you eat enough of the plant to survive, like the phyto-estrogens in soy.  Some are even worse: women aren't even supposed to touch fresh hops without protective gear.  And, to top it off, you generally need to douse the plants in toxic pesticides and such, in order to produce those high yields per acre that you're touting.

Joe

[Lloyd Danforth]

I could build greenhouses and feed rabbits, then eat the rabbits.  Rabbits are pretty darn efficient at converting feed into meat, and they eat stuff that I wouldn't (but which grows far more easily than crops suitable for human food).

Always put the rabbits over your earth worm bed so they can poop on them.

I think that much of the cost of a salad is due to how perishable the ingredients are, that you can't freeze them and the cost of preparation.

[MaineShark]

I could build greenhouses and feed rabbits, then eat the rabbits.  Rabbits are pretty darn efficient at converting feed into meat, and they eat stuff that I wouldn't (but which grows far more easily than crops suitable for human food).

Always put the rabbits over your earth worm bed so they can poop on them.

Don't even need to - rabbit manure doesn't need to be composted before use, unlike most manures.  It's also, as fecal matter goes, pretty inoffensive.

Only problem is that you can't survive on nothing but rabbits; the meat is too low-fat.  You actually have to add fats to your diet, or you'll suffer from malnutrition.  Of course, it's much easier to add fat, than to remove it.  Fry your rabbit up in bacon grease

I think that much of the cost of a salad is due to how perishable the ingredients are, that you can't freeze them and the cost of preparation.

Yup.  But animals will eat vegetable matter that has been dried, or otherwise inexpensively stored.  I can store alfalfa for months.

Joe

[Alex Libman]

Gentlemen, this isn't a holy war!  (Though I do fight many holy wars elsewhere.  Burn, emacs, burn!)  This is a thread celebrating kale for all its factual virtues.  I am explaining why a diet focused on "heroic plants" like kale is economically superior, and why optimizing resources that are essential for survival and liberty is an important component of my overall philosophy.  You are obviously free to eat whatever you like, no matter how unhealthy and/or agriculturally inefficient, and I agree that meat is very tasty (in my case additively so).

Yeah, they lower them.  I could make more money selling meat, if the government butted out.

Obviously.  I've presented my argument from the point of view of the consumers of food (which is everybody), not meat producers who don't get government subsidies (a tiny minority of a tiny minority).

And it's not in my rational self-interest to eat crud.

Crud - "a coating or an incrustation of filth or refuse"...  You're not going to claim that a cow is bacteriologically cleaner than a greenhouse plant like kale, now are you?  Animals contain organs, blood, vessels, bile, parasites (which also love humans), pus, digestive bacteria, poop, urine, etc.  In order to make it less crud-like, meat has to be thoroughly cleaned, sanitized, and cooked, and it will still take your body a lot of extra effort to digest it, and some remnants will stay around for a long time.  Most meat consumed today is also radiated and frozen.  A plant, on the other hand, is still alive when you eat it, and if you have a local greenhouse it can be only seconds removed from the soil!

And it's not Phyto-estrogens, alone, are enough reason not to eat large amounts of soy.

The evidence against soy is inconclusive, and the most damning studies can be explained by the many billions of dollars that are spent to encourage people to eat the more expensive (especially counting government subsidies) animal products, with the meat industry seeing human consumption of soy as its primary threat.  The soy-munching East-Asian countries, though they have not reached economic parity with USA yet, are not seeing any negative effects in their men - quite the contrary, they tend to live longer and be a lot more active in their advanced years than their American counterparts.  You should also keep in mind that allegations don't apply to fermented products like soy sauce and tempeh - which are the best way to consume soy for a number of other reasons as well.

And why are you talking about soy in the first place?  This is a kale thread!  I eat very little soy except soy sauce being an ingredient in most of my thousands of different bean / pea / legume stew variations.  (I think I might be angry at all the time I've wasted trying to learn Japanese / Mandarin / Cantonese / Korean during the various phases I've went through a number of years ago, so now I mainly focus on more Western and Northern ingredients instead.)  Anything soy can do hemp can do better, and the various new GE alge and fungus extracts can do better still - but that's not what this thread is about.

Not seeing any of those benefits.  I can make more money selling meat, stay healthier eating and meat, make better use of land by growing crops that herbivores eat.  Many food animals eat plants that are, for the most part, weeds.  They don't require the level of effort needed to cultivate food crops.

If you insist on leaving your land in a state where it mostly grows weeds (i.e. things inedible to humans), then yes, it will be more profitable to pass those weeds through animals.  Aside from that, what you're saying makes no sense, like Baron Münchhausen claiming to lift himself off the ground by pulling up on his bootstraps.  You cannot get more nutrition by putting things through an animal's body, period.  Animal products do have the advantage of density and taste, but modern science offers an increasing array of plant processing solutions that can more than compensate.

Really?  All those toxic substances that appear out of nowhere?  If the animal doesn't ingest them, where would they come from?  And if the animal were ingesting them, then stop feeding toxic substances to your animals.

Nothing "appears out of nowhere" - substances undergo various chemical and biological changes.  Things that exist in harmless quantities in plants get concentrated.  Other harmful substances -- sterols, hormones, pus, etc -- are produced by the animal's body, which exists for its own interest in the best state of health that it can manage, and cares nothing for the health of whoever is going to kill and eat it.  Parasites, bacteria, viruses, etc act in their own interest as well.  Additional hormones and other substances are often added in an attempt to maximize production.  Etc.

Plants, on the other hand, produce all manner of toxins.  Oxylates, cyanide, etc.  And then many have phyto-hormones that are in high doses when you eat enough of the plant to survive, like the phyto-estrogens in soy.  Some are even worse: women aren't even supposed to touch fresh hops without protective gear.  And, to top it off, you generally need to douse the plants in toxic pesticides and such, in order to produce those high yields per acre that you're touting.

I'm not saying that all plants are in every way safe, just that passing them through an animal's body beforehand makes no nutritional sense.

Plants exist in a symbiotic relationship with humans, while animals exist in a competitive one.  Plants don't have individual survival instincts, and some have actually evolved to encourage animals to eat them, so that they would spread and fertilize the seeds, which can make it through the animal's digestive system intact.  Humans have taken this process to a whole new level.  There are tens of thousands of species of edible plants out there, with new ones being created every day.  The ones we grow and eat have been optimized by thousands of years of human selection for our benefit - a process that can happen much faster for plants than for animals, and that thanks to modern science can happen faster still.

We can remove harmful substances from plants by various means, from crossbreeding to genetic engineering to fermentation to chemical processing, etc.  But a cow cannot possibly ever produce more nutrition than goes into it (i.e. what human-edible plants could have been grown on the same area of land).

[MaineShark]

Gentlemen, this isn't a holy war!  (Though I do fight many holy wars elsewhere.  Burn, emacs, burn!)  This is a thread celebrating kale for all its factual virtues.  I am explaining why a diet focused on "heroic plants" like kale is economically superior, and why optimizing resources that are essential for survival and liberty is an important component of my overall philosophy.  You are obviously free to eat whatever you like, no matter how unhealthy and/or agriculturally inefficient, and I agree that meat is very tasty (in my case additively so).

Except that your claims are false.

Obviously.  I've presented my argument from the point of view of the consumers of food (which is everybody), not meat producers who don't get government subsidies (a tiny minority of a tiny minority).

The majority of meat producers don't get any subsidies.

Crud - "a coating or an incrustation of filth or refuse"...  You're not going to claim that a cow is bacteriologically cleaner than a greenhouse plant like kale, now are you?  Animals contain organs, blood, vessels, bile, parasites (which also love humans), pus, digestive bacteria, poop, urine, etc.  In order to make it less crud-like, meat has to be thoroughly cleaned, sanitized, and cooked, and it will still take your body a lot of extra effort to digest it, and some remnants will stay around for a long time.

Actually, no, meat does not have to be "sanitized and cooked."  You have to use poor handling practices to contaminate meat.  No more cleaning is needed than with vegetables.

Most meat consumed today is also radiated and frozen.

Citation?  I can't recall ever buying irradiated meat, and have only purchased frozen meat on very rare occasions.

A plant, on the other hand, is still alive when you eat it, and if you have a local greenhouse it can be only seconds removed from the soil!

What's your point?  Plenty of plants are dangerously toxic, if not cooked.  Plenty are toxic, even when cooked.

The evidence against soy is inconclusive, and the most damning studies can be explained by the many billions of dollars that are spent to encourage people to eat the more expensive (especially counting government subsidies) animal products, with the meat industry seeing human consumption of soy as its primary threat.

Um, no, the evidence is explained by science.

Soy is also the second-most allergenic food, last I heard (second only to peanuts).  So it is unsuitable for human consumption on many levels.

Oh, and plant farmers are heavily subsidized by the government, as well.

And why are you talking about soy in the first place?  This is a kale thread!

Then why did you bring up soy?

If you insist on leaving your land in a state where it mostly grows weeds (i.e. things inedible to humans), then yes, it will be more profitable to pass those weeds through animals.

Plenty of land is not ideal farmland.  The energy input to create cropland out of the existing land, many places, is not economically viable.

Aside from that, what you're saying makes no sense, like Baron Münchhausen claiming to lift himself off the ground by pulling up on his bootstraps.  You cannot get more nutrition by putting things through an animal's body, period.

Um, yes, you can, if you are feeding the animal things which are not nutritious to you.  Last I checked, I can't survive on the diet I feed to my rabbits.  But they can.  They're converting things which are not appreciably nutritious to me (like alfalfa) into things which are (like meat).  I get dramatically more nutrition by eating rabbits, than I would be eating alfalfa.

Nothing "appears out of nowhere" - substances undergo various chemical and biological changes.  Things that exist in harmless quantities in plants get concentrated.  Other harmful substances -- sterols, hormones, pus, etc -- are produced by the animal's body, which exists for its own interest in the best state of health that it can manage, and cares nothing for the health of whoever is going to kill and eat it.  Parasites, bacteria, viruses, etc act in their own interest as well.

All of which applies to plants, which are often toxic, and all of which contain hormones and the like.

I'm not saying that all plants are in every way safe, just that passing them through an animal's body beforehand makes no nutritional sense.

Sure it does, if the animal can convert things which are not nutritional to me, into things which are.

Plants exist in a symbiotic relationship with humans, while animals exist in a competitive one.

That's totally untrue.

Plants don't have individual survival instincts...

Last I checked, my rabbits don't fight back, so what does that matter?  Unless you're hunting and eating dangerous game, the survival instincts, or lack thereof, are irrelevant.

...and some have actually evolved to encourage animals to eat them, so that they would spread and fertilize the seeds, which can make it through the animal's digestive system intact.  Humans have taken this process to a whole new level.  There are tens of thousands of species of edible plants out there, with new ones being created every day.  The ones we grow and eat have been optimized by thousands of years of human selection for our benefit - a process that can happen much faster for plants than for animals, and that thanks to modern science can happen faster still.

Bah.  Generations on rabbits are no longer than the growing season, so I can breed for traits essentially as quickly as I could do so with plants.  Rabbits are darn near perfect meat animals, as is, so there's little need.  When we do any selection, it's mostly for amusement, like producing blue-eyed rabbits.

We can remove harmful substances from plants by various means, from crossbreeding to genetic engineering to fermentation to chemical processing, etc.  But a cow cannot possibly ever produce more nutrition than goes into it (i.e. what human-edible plants could have been grown on the same area of land).

Except that plenty of land isn't suitable for producing plants for human consumption in any quantity.

Joe