> I suspect the fat content for farmed beasts would be higher >than wild
beasts.

well i guess if u assume what you want to establish, you'll succeed.  if you
are serious about this, then take the time to do some proper research.  what
i found for myself after looking at aboriginal diets for a couple of weeks
is that they guided themselves round the calendar according to the best time
to hunt for the animal in season, ie when it was fattest.  they knew
[dammit, those savages knew something after all!] that a fat animal provided
more nourishment than a lean one.  I'll rest with that at the moment.
some vocab for you: depot fat, subcuteneous fat, organ fat, marrow.



>I don't believe hunter gatherers would have gone through the >energy
expenditure and danger of killing a buffalo only to leave >the half the
carcass lying on the ground. Except in extreme >cases...

animals do the same. if things were a-plenty im sure hunters could do
whatever they want.  since a good buffalo would provide about 10,000% return
on calories invested in the hunting there would be some spare meat to be
thrown to the dogs.


>Those figures are for the meat portion of the organ.
you are really losing the plot now. the original point was that the fat
_surrounding_ the organ [ie heart and kidney] is highly saturated. because
the organs burn saturated fat for fuel.  this adds considerably to the SFA
balance in total lipid consumption, whether for paleo man or modern man
eating grain or grass-fed beef, and renders your figures entirely
meaningless.

>There is much evidence to suggest that hunter gatherers >prized the organ
meats more highly than any other part of a >carcass
yes and this was reflected in the home cook books up until the mid-twentieth
century.

andrew