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!

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

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!

Quit the political BS... tell the truth... lamb STINKS!!!

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.

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

On 17/08/2011 9:12 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:


> 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.


People aren't usually indifferent to lamb. They seem to love it or hate it.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 07:21:55 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:

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

I don't understand this smell problem either.

Lou

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 17/08/2011 9:12 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> People aren't usually indifferent to lamb. They seem to love it or
> hate it.

It's not touted as "spring lamb" for nothing. The older it gets, the
stronger the flavour.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 06:33:59 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:

> 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.

Don't you think it's more available on restaurant menus than it was in
the distant past? I often wonder what happens to the rest of the lamb
because it's usually just chops and roasts that are on restaurant
menus. I haven't seen a lamb or veal breast in the meat department in
literally decades.


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 07:21:55 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:

>
> 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.

Or burned the fat.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Hackmatack wrote:
>
> 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

Sheep can be grazed on land that's too sloped for cows. Beef cattle
can be grazed on land that's too dry for sheep. As raised in the US
sheep are mostly on the hiils. There are a lot of cows in dairy country
in geography that would work fine for sheep so there's the potential for
overlap but as most commonly raised there's little overlap in the US.

Lou Decruss wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 07:21:55 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 09:12:26 -0400, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>
> I don't understand this smell problem either.
>
> Lou

It's when the meat is no longer young lamb, but mutton. Mutton is
greasy with a strong smell that most people find unpleasant.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:54:23 -0400, "Dora" > wrote:

>Lou Decruss wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 07:21:55 -0600, Janet Bostwick
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 09:12:26 -0400, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>> I don't understand this smell problem either.
>>
>> Lou
>
>It's when the meat is no longer young lamb, but mutton. Mutton is
>greasy with a strong smell that most people find unpleasant.

I must have never had mutton.

Lou

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 11:25:56 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 06:33:59 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Don't you think it's more available on restaurant menus than it was in
>the distant past? I often wonder what happens to the rest of the lamb
>because it's usually just chops and roasts that are on restaurant
>menus. I haven't seen a lamb or veal breast in the meat department in
>literally decades.

Yes, I think there is more in restaurant menus. I also think many
specialty meats are delivered regionally to meet the demand of certain
local tastes.
Janet US

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:55:56 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:

> I also think many
> specialty meats are delivered regionally to meet the demand of certain
> local tastes.

I can say for sure that veal and duck are on more menus back East
(Coast) than out here on the West Coast.

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila

On 17/08/2011 2:54 PM, Dora wrote:

>
> It's when the meat is no longer young lamb, but mutton. Mutton is greasy
> with a strong smell that most people find unpleasant.

My father was in the air force and spent several years in England and
Scotland during the war. He developed a powerful dislike of mutton that
was generalized to include lamb. My mother loved lamb and never got to
eat it except when she came here, and we would cook something different
for Dad.

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 17/08/2011 2:54 PM, Dora wrote:
>
>>
>> It's when the meat is no longer young lamb, but mutton. Mutton is
>> greasy with a strong smell that most people find unpleasant.
>
> My father was in the air force and spent several years in England
> and
> Scotland during the war. He developed a powerful dislike of mutton
> that was generalized to include lamb. My mother loved lamb and never
> got to eat it except when she came here, and we would cook something
> different for Dad.

Yes - I made the same comment elsewhere in this thread, wondering if
that's where the dislike came from.