3 ms·

For what it's worth, there are many interesting tidbits sourced from scientific studies in this article: "they found that organic dairy farms cause at least 30

For what it's worth, there are many interesting tidbits sourced from scientific studies in this article: "they found that organic dairy farms cause at least 30% more soil loss, and take up twice as much land, as conventional dairy farming for the same amount of milk produced, for example." We shouldn't forget the macro-level environmental benefits of non-organic GMO factory farming.

adrianN 7y ago
Since it's unlikely that we can double or triple the amount of land dedicated to agriculture, the effective result of more organic farming would be higher prices for food and consequently less consumption of animal products.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
It's hard to tell whether or not the claims are credible or not as he links to no sources for any of the figures. Given the article's author I'd want to validate any such claims.
- indalo 7y ago
  I would exercise caution as this is linked to the CATO institute. I find their method of inquiry and reporting to be disingenuous.
- drak0n1c 7y ago
  They are sourced, the researchers and universities behind each of the figures are named and it is easy to look them up. Are hyperlinks necessary? The findings are published in journals, not on websites.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Journals publish on the web, albeit often behind a hard paywall. When one doesn't mention the the journal it appears in, the year or title of the study, and it doesn't appear in the list of many papers associated with the professor at Wikipedia a simple link would assist. You have to wonder if the choice not to link is obfuscatory, especially when several other discussions in the article are very carefully cherry picked - not mentioning a global ban on whaling for instance. Besides, it is the web, it is only courtesy to the reader link and cite. I think less of mainstream media who don't link to source or cherry pick. So I am certainly going to think less of someone who claims to be a scientist who doesn't bother, and question their motives just as strongly.

adrianN 7y ago

Since it's unlikely that we can double or triple the amount of land dedicated to agriculture, the effective result of more organic farming would be higher prices for food and consequently less consumption of animal products.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

It's hard to tell whether or not the claims are credible or not as he links to no sources for any of the figures. Given the article's author I'd want to validate any such claims.

indalo 7y ago
I would exercise caution as this is linked to the CATO institute. I find their method of inquiry and reporting to be disingenuous.
drak0n1c 7y ago
They are sourced, the researchers and universities behind each of the figures are named and it is easy to look them up. Are hyperlinks necessary? The findings are published in journals, not on websites.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Journals publish on the web, albeit often behind a hard paywall. When one doesn't mention the the journal it appears in, the year or title of the study, and it doesn't appear in the list of many papers associated with the professor at Wikipedia a simple link would assist. You have to wonder if the choice not to link is obfuscatory, especially when several other discussions in the article are very carefully cherry picked - not mentioning a global ban on whaling for instance. Besides, it is the web, it is only courtesy to the reader link and cite. I think less of mainstream media who don't link to source or cherry pick. So I am certainly going to think less of someone who claims to be a scientist who doesn't bother, and question their motives just as strongly.