lamb or the wool?

we're all getting older each microsecond of the day, but occasionally something reminds us of this inevitable process of what we call life. recently richard glover of abc702 and smh columnist has been reminding me that I am no longer a carefree 22 year old!

In recent weeks he has discussed his domestic appointment as Minister for the Environment of his family, and I chortled along whilst reading the article thinking of my own Al Gore that wanders around trhe house turning things off, and unplugging every day appliance so that i have to crawl under furniture to use them.

so again I felt just another bit older when I read, in praise of cantankerous skinflints because I had to acknowledge that i agree with this nerdy but personable man, on lots of things.

point of the article: supermarkets charge what they think customers will pay and bank on consumers not knowing the difference in quality of a leg of lamb costing $14.99 and that costing $25.00!!!

richard alludes to, but doesn't address, the is a difference - one will be a sheep bred for wool offloaded onto the market owing to drought or other circumstances, and one will be a lamb bred for lamb, on a farm, of a certain meat-providing breed. one of these sheep is prone to a larger surface area (the wool one) and the other is prone to meatiness. can you tell the difference in the supermarket? I doubt it, because if you're buying your lamb there, it's usually the wooly stuff!

No comments: