• Skua@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      the paper tries to quantify all the inputs and outputs for foods, but it fails to actually calculate either the actualy outputs (like non-food animal products), or the actual costs of the inputs (many of which would be waste products)

      Emphasis mine, of course. The remaining four-fifths of your comment focussed entirely on inputs too. The paper does not do this and never intended or claimed to. It collates the work of other papers that did it. Why tell such an obvious lie? Your comment is literally right there

        • Skua@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Is it fuck. You complained about their methodology and then went on to cite an example of a problematic methodology that they simply did not use. You have not read the paper.

            • Skua@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Alright, point me to the page of the study or the line of the database that counts the full water usage of cottonseed in beef production. Should be easy for you.

              • spud@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                you know as well as I do that the meta analysis is depending on studies that do exactly what I said, and relying on papers that employ a flawed methodology is, itself, a flawed methodology.

                • Skua@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I already gave you an example of one of the papers it’s relying on, and it clearly isn’t doing that. Which ones are?