Not to go down the whole list, but the first two stick out, vom saal has been called into question as biased, the science has been heavily challenged, etc. Salatin is not a scientist to my knowledge, and since he himself is finacially based on selling meat that he just called superior, this would be as objective as getting tobacco risk info from people who sell cigarettes or nicotine patches.

I'm afraid that a very great deal of these simply represent a bias from the interested parties who favor organic farming which has become a fairly large business in it's own right and has begun including much science in it's arguments which are at best weighted, unconfirmed, or even pseudoscience to justify the purchase of their more expensive products. Many of the claims from that industry simply do not pass muster.

Edit: Let me add, I've no objection to organic food and often there are some apparent benefits, but it is a business and business is business and a lot of the claims they make aren't really supported and tend to be 'Some experts believe this may...' like the sort of stuff you see on herbal remedies with the little asterisk and 'statements not evauluated by the FDA'.