good science is recognizing that LCAs are not transferable between studies, so poore-nemecek’s analysis must be disregarded.

this is just recycled poore nemecek. it’s bad science gaining entrenchment.

you are putting specific terminology in place of the words as written,and claiming it’s a clear connotation, when it is not

federated not Facebook

the vegan society definition makes no mention of consent. only exploitation.

this paper doesn’t tell us how much methane is produced. it’s as detailed as your comment.

what is the data? how much do they produce?

the paper compiles LCAs from disparate sources. but LCAs are not transferable between studies. the entire basis of the analysis is bad science.

this is just poore-nemecek, and it is bad science.

the more I dig into this paper the worse it gets. it’s calculating inputs from feed and land use change. this is as bad as poore-nemecek. but it’s not even using data from the operations, instead it’s just guessing.

no one should take this paper seriously, except academic rhetoricians who need to show their colleagues how the trappings of science are used to spread claims without evidence.

edit:

page 65: this report is an extrapolation based on ivanovich et al, which itself is an extrapolation based on poore-nemecek. this is bad science built on bad science.

I’m totally open to the claims that are presented, but the evidence used to support it simply can’t do that.

if they could prove it, this would be worth discussing. these are just guesses.

no single raindrop is to blame for the flood, and poore-nemecek is scientific malpractice. I wouldn’t trust that paper to tell me the co2e of co2

your attack on my style does not address the substance of my objections. it is pure sophistry.

I’ve read the paper, seen absolutely nothing wrong with it

I’ve read it too, and enough of it’s references to understand that LCAs are not transferable between studies, and so all the LCA analysis must be disregarded.

I also have looked at enough of the source LCA data to understand that much of the water and land use (and GHG emissions) attributed to animal agriculture is actually a conservation of those same resources, as they come from second-and- third uses of crops.

the only attempt I could find to debunk this paper was from, again, a disinformation outlet whose lies are explored in that AFP article

their objection had nothing to do with mine

but we DO make tofu and tvp. and they have higher profits per pound than animal feed. but we produce far too much soybean oil for the amount of byproduct people want to consume. giving it to livestock makes sense

Or is your source just a shitty, Z-tier disinformation outlet called “Farmers Against Misinformation”

your link doesn’t seem to align with anything i’ve said. are you sure you used the right link?

Is your entire purpose on Lemmy to spread anti-vegan, pro-animal agriculture disinformation?

this reads like pigeonholing. my “purpose” is to keep conversations honest and challenge bad science and reasoning.

the authors’ original findings that dairy is abysmal for the environment when compared with the alternatives

cannot be substantiated with the methodology used in this metastudy.

link to the academic paper refuting it.

seems like an appeal to authority, but i encourage you and anyone interested to look into how LCAs were abused, and how much cottonseed is weighed in the water use and land use of dairy milk, despite cotton being grown for textiles.