Hunted meat must be muuuuch healthier than the meat u buy from the supermarket right?

Question

Meat that you hunt in the wild must be much healthier nutrition wise, than the crappy meat you buy from the supermarket, the meat you buy from the supermarket is from animals who are drugged to get big, and live crappy short lives and are really unhealthy, which means the meat is a lot less nutritious right?

As opposed to an animal you go into the wild to hunt and kill, the animals in the wild feed on berries, herbs, nuts, seeds, which would make the meat much much nutritious opposed to supermarket meat right?

Does anyone have any idea just how much more nutritious a wild animal is, as opposed to one that was born in a slaughter house, drugged with growth hormones, and lived a crappy life?

Answer 1

I agree with the fact that they r on drugs such as chicken. However, if u hunt them, u dont no if its sick. Usually, the company cleans it off

Answer 2

If you know how to identify and eradicate "spagnosis" in wild pig, eat it to your heart's content.

Answer 3

definatly if you eat something you just killed in the wild try it against something you bought from super market the difference is loads!

Answer 4

It's not more nutrious necessarily - that depends on what animals you are comparing.  You aren't even avoiding additives since wild game consumes pesticides and insecticides.  Also, there are sick wild animals.  Generalizations just don't work.

Answer 5

Growth hormones do not affect the nutritional quality of the meat. The diet would.

The nutritional quality will only differ slightly in vitamin and mineral content, since that depends entirely on what the animal is being fed. Animals fed solely on corn and grain will probably have lower contents of some vitamins than grass-fed and wild animals.

I don't think the nutritional content of conventional meat is a big problem. Hunted meat tastes better and is more ethical, but as far as nutritional content is concerned, meat is meat, whether you clone it in a lab or catch it in the brush.

Wild meat is actually LESS likely to be sick than slaughterhouse meat since slaughterhouse meat has been kept in close quarters with other sickly animals, been fed various things and sometimes other sickly animal parts. There is a reason they inject feed lot meat with antibiotics. Wild animals do not have as much contact with pathogens spread through other animals since they are more spread out and aren't living knee-deep in fecal matter. Not to say there aren't sick wild animals, just that the number of illnesses in "domesticated" meat is higher due to their close proximity and bad diet. Wild animals that are sick will usually die before they are hunted, whereas domesticated animals make it all the way to the slaughterhouse while still sickly.

And companies do a pretty crappy job at "cleaning" their meat. When raw McDonald's hamburgers were tested, they had an unnaturally high level of fecal coliform bacteria (e.coli).