Personally, I think that doing the best you can has got to be better than saying, "oh well, it's all contaminated, so we're screwed". Is it truly physiologically possible for the fat of an animal to be contaminated by a vegetable oil it ingested? I shouldn't think that any of it would make it intact to the animal's fat deposits. I do agree, though, that given the choice between wild game and beef, the wild game has to be the better choice. Last week, I asked a meat guy for some suet. He walked out of the refrigerator with a piece almost the size of my Basset Hound and said, "Is this enough?" I thought to myself that it was awful strange that a cow should have such a big bunch of fat all in one place... MHO, John Pavao ---------- He also claims, however, that beef fat is contaminated by these oils, as a consequence of the way in which cattle are fed. This also coincides with the view that beef fat contains excessive amounts of arachidonic acid, another consequence of modern feeding practices. The clear implication is that the use of suet, from commercial sources at least, to make pemmican is questionable. While the native Americans who invented pemmican didn't have to deal with this contamination of the food supply, we do. I'd be interested to hear what others think about Peat's essays and this line of thinking in general. Todd Moody [log in to unmask]