The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
if we uh utilized all the under grazed areas all the non-grazed areas we were talking earlier about the crp program so the government has all these tracks of land that are just not being used right now for grazing um so if we were to work in uh these fallow fields um in between crop production with grazing um that's actually a win for everybody because it you know puts nutrients back into the soil
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
so if we were to work in these fallow fields in between crop production with grazing that's actually a win for everybody because it you know puts nutrients back into the soil