"Indispensable" is the language used in the link I sent, so I was shooting for consistency. While it is possible to get what is needed through plants, obtaining

"Indispensable" is the language used in the link I sent, so I was shooting for consistency. While it is possible to get what is needed through plants, obtaining protein from animal sources is far more direct, easy to digest, requires less material for the body to work with, and does not carry along the antinutrients (lectins, oxalates, etc.) plant foods so often deliver and which can be quite damaging to humans. The argument is also not for feedlots, but for pastures — in a post below I argue for getting rid of the grains which we use to feed these animals (which isn't great for them to eat, either). There is good evidence (see Peter Ballerstedt's work for details on this) that pastured ruminants end up generating excellent soil that holds in water and is actually on the good end of things, methane emission-wise (though the problem of emissions from feedlots are greatly overblown as the pollution which comes from planting, harvesting, processing, and distributing plants rarely gets folded into the equation). Funny that. And, finally, as for "getting enough" — getting enough to get by is not optimal for health. More & better protein is needed for that, and that comes from renewable animal sources which don't require vast expenditures of energy, processing, and which prevent the loss of topsoil while adding to the vitality of the soil. I want everyone to be healthy, and there's a path for that to happen, one which won't be taken if we go down the "plant based" path instead.