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]