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.
I really believe like from the bottom of my heart that we need to support farms like this that we will be healthier that the earth will be healthier and that this is the incontrovertible argument for the way that animals should be raised
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.
they also have done lifecycle analyses on their animals looking at carbon emissions and are similarly carbon negative they've also done what I think is probably one of the cooler things which is look at the soil and they can see increasing organic matter in the soil when we are raising animals in this way
they are doing regenerative agriculture they are enriching the soil with carbon and organic matter