On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 09:12:26 -0400, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 06:33:59 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 09:46:45 +0000 (UTC), Hackmatack
> wrote:
>>
>>>Leon Manfredi > wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:12:02 +0000 (UTC), Hackmatack
>>>
>>>> I don't think that it's because of popularity, I suspect that is because it's
>>>> not plentiful, which results in "expensive".
>>>
>>>Presumably an increase in demand would produce an increase in supply and
>>>eventually a reduction in price. There are probably some inherent reasons
>>>why lamb production can never rival beef production, though. Sheep require
>>>a lot of grazing land, for one thing, and are not amenable to the CAFO
>>>system ("concentrated animal feeding operations"). Not, that is, until
>>>American industrial farmlng figures out a way to fatten lamb as unnaturally
>>>as it fattens cattle. Just give them time!
>>
>>Around here, sheep roam and graze on government land overseen by
>>Basque sheepherders. We see less of that than we did when we moved
>>here years ago, but it still goes on.
>>That still doesn't mean that lamb is available in the market.
>>Janet US
>
>There are plenty of sheep raised in the US for their wool, they are
>easier than cattle... there is no big demend for lamb in the US
>because most people can't abide its stench.

There is no more smell to it than cooking duck or goose or for that
matter any of the acceptable US meats. You've just been brainwashed
that the smell is bad.
Janet