Not exact matches
Few
data exist
on pig and poultry farms, but labour per hectare of utilized agricultural area seems to be similar to conventional farms, as livestock density is reduced.
Dr Luis Pedro Coelho, commented: «These findings suggest that dogs could be a better model for nutrition studies than
pigs or mice and we could potentially use
data from dogs to study the impact of diet
on gut microbiota in humans, and humans could be a good model to study the nutrition of dogs.
It is an analysis of metric
data taken from the remains of domestic animals (cows, sheep and
pigs) salvaged
on archaeological sites across the Iberian Peninsula.
My question is, have there been any studies which focus specifically
on the health effects of naturally farmed beef,
pigs, chickens, etc (from cows which are free range, grass fed, not constantly given antibiotics, etc), and do those studies reinforce
data procured from studies regarding the healthfulness of industrially produced meats?
The latter have exhaustive
data on hardiness, weight, and reproductive ability because cattle,
pigs, chickens, etc. are an economic crop.
That of course brings up a whole other discussion about what is «good
data», but in my eyes that discussion is much better than trying to put lipstick
on a
pig.
I think I'm approaching «pretty good house» status with my own house serving as self - directed building science guinea
pig, having logged performance
data on my house HVAC and finding it only needed one ton of cooling over one hour of the hottest part of one day for 1860 square feet earlier this week.
educated as an engineer and find much of this statistics talk eye rolling boring... funny thing about engineering... not much use for statistics... a bridge that is safe to 95 % confidence is not a bridge but a death trap... It all comes down to
data... and you don't have any... what you have is 3rd hand massaged nonsense... even your new paper will just be putting lipstick
on a
pig...