> Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that someone consuming this animal would benefit more than someone consuming the factory farmed pig?
No. This is the naturalistic fallacy [1] in new clothes.
We need the additional studies showing how stress and poor diet makes most factory-farmed meat less nutritionally dense than the pasture-raised stuff. Though even then, it isn’t anything inherent to the production method causing the variance.
> We need the additional studies showing how stress and poor diet makes most factory-farmed meat less nutritionally dense than the pasture-raised stuff
you're presuming the conclusion. You're asking for (additional??) studies to show something you've stated without evidence. Unless I'm misunderstanding you.
> You're asking for (additional??) studies to show something you've stated without evidence
I believe we have evidence for factory-farmed meat being less nutritionally dense than pasture-raised meat. But the reason isn’t the factory farming per se. It’s the correlates to factory farming.
So OP’s example is true. Just not for the reason hypothesised.
One quite literally can conclude nothing useful from that. They got the same feeding, it says so in sentence 3. It shows the testing laboratories were a great variation in the outcome, not the chickens. The free range had a bit more fat - is that good or bad? "Vitamin A and E levels were not affected..."
So what point were you trying to make by posting this?
I'm getting fed up with the quality of posts here, you can't base your reality around what feels nice, give us data or stop making baseless claims.
> The free range had a bit more fat - is that good or bad?
It’s a controlled study isolating the effect of letting the chickens run around. Lower fat ceteris paribus and higher fatty acid is generally considered good, and no, I’m not going to link to every paper that makes that point.
If you let diet vary then yes, you get more pronounced results [2].
> give us data or stop making baseless claims
This is a forum. Not your personal research service. These materials are a simple search away and you are refuting with zero evidence.
> isolating the effect of letting the chickens run around
true but irrelevant. What you said earlier was about 'pasture raised'...
> factory-farmed meat being less nutritionally dense than pasture-raised meat
but they got the same nutrition because they were fed the same factory diet, free-range or not. So totally irrelevant.
> and you are refuting with zero evidence
No, you are claiming with zero evidence. I am asking for evidence, and then point out your one piece of subsequently cited 'evidence' wasn't.
Your next cite is pretty ambiguous too - you previously: "and poor diet makes most factory-farmed meat less nutritionally dense than the pasture-raised", your cited study:
> It is also noted that grain-fed beef consumers may achieve similar intakes of both n-3 and CLA through the consumption of higher fat grain-fed portions
So in that respect the same.
Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutathione for example says "Systemic bioavailability of orally consumed glutathione is poor because..." so that don't help, and I can't see any evidence for or against that glutathione (or the other antioxidant) survives cooking.
Your posting unsubstantiated stuff is no more than an extension of ant-vaxxer's thinking, "this is fluffy and nice so it must be right".
Reality matters. What you want to believe doesn't.
No. This is the naturalistic fallacy [1] in new clothes.
We need the additional studies showing how stress and poor diet makes most factory-farmed meat less nutritionally dense than the pasture-raised stuff. Though even then, it isn’t anything inherent to the production method causing the variance.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy