On Sat, 29 Dec 2001 10:35:45 +0100, Hans Kylberg <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>At 19:04 2001-12-29 +1100, Richard wrote:
>
>>Wild boar is listed in the USDA database as
>>3.33% fat while the whole pig carcass is 35% fat.
>
>I recently read an article about the difference between our domesticated
>animals and their wild ancestors. It told that 50 years ago pigs had
>more fat than wild boar, but modern pigs actually have less fat than
>wild boar.
>I guess the 3.33% you mention is not for the whole carcass,
>but for a rather low fat cut.
>
>- Hans

As Richard Archer has pointed out wild game animals actually *are* that low
in fat. I support Richards posting. He
 provided the important aspects - fat
percentages *and* fat composition.

The muscle itself is even more lean (2% or less). The rest of the fat
(towards an average of some 4%) is located near the kidneys, in the brain,
the marrow, under the skin and in the bones.
(You find an exact example list at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A2=ind0008&L=paleodiet&P=416 )

Similar has been found in a study of "40 wild unugulates...".

Some animals are high in fat. Hibernating animals in the autumn
(this is why the bear was hunted for the fat and the boring muscle
discarded).
And extreme north animals (mostly marine).

Domestic pigs some 50 years ago surely were much less fat. Like many other
domestic animals in poorer countries or before the introduction of "power
food" to feed them up.
But I can't imagine they were less fatty than wild boar.
Eatin
g commercial pigs of today demands fat supplementation with more PUFA
and particularly omega-3 series PUFA.
Same for other farmed animals.

Amadeus S.