Can cats not eat pork?

Diane wrote:
In article . com,
"Steve Crane" wrote:

Pork isn't all that common becasue it isn't all that commonly eaten by
humans. Think about how often you eat beef or chicken or turkey and how
seldom you eat pork. As much as I like a good pork roast, it been
months and months since we had one in this house. R

What about ham? Same critter.

Right - same critter, but still the same issue. We humans consume many
times more beef or chicken than we do hogs - regardless of the typs of
pork used.

We eat turkey bacon though...but it has to be fixed extra crisp ;-) for
them...jk..

That's good your cat stays away from human food...it's really not that
healthy for them..Now if I can only get my cats to think that way :-)

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 00:10:36 GMT, Diane
wrote:

In article . com,
"Steve Crane" wrote:

Pork isn't all that common becasue it isn't all that commonly eaten by
humans. Think about how often you eat beef or chicken or turkey and how
seldom you eat pork. As much as I like a good pork roast, it been
months and months since we had one in this house. R

What about ham? Same critter.

Read the list of ingredients on a ham package sometime. On second
thought, if you like ham, you might not want to read the ingredients
list.

--
T.E.D. )

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Ajanta wrote:

Norm wrote:

: Can cats not eat pork? Is it harmful to them?
:
: Mine love it, particularly to gnaw on the bones and it hasn't hurt
: them any way I can see.

Hmmm I wonder why there is no pork in commercially sold cans?

Maybe because they use all the less desireable bits in
canned meat products for humans, instead?

Like Spam? ;-)

Joy

Scary thought is what we eat is worse than what they eat ours just looks
better

"Steve Crane" wrote in message
ups.com...

Phil P. wrote:
Cost (expensive compared to most pet food protein sources) and probably
religious concerns (e.g., Judaism, Islam) and possibly exaggerated fear
of
trichinosis (only if eaten raw or not cooked thoroughly).

It's not that pork is more or less expensive than other meat meals. The
range in price for meat meals is waaaaay more variable based on the ash
content than on the species from which it is derived.

I wasn't referring to pork meal-- with the water and fat removed. I was
referring pork meat.

Actually, the ash content of clean pork meat products is very low-- For
example, the
protein to ash ratio for pork loin is actually quite high-- about 20:1
(28.57:1.4). The higher the protein to ash ratio the more digestible the
food. The phosphorus content is also excellent- about 89 mg/100 kcals.

http://www.maxshouse.com/Clinical_Nu...,CKD,BRSD1.jpg


Pork isn't all that common becasue it isn't all that commonly eaten by
humans.

That's just about what I said in my previous post.

"For whatever reason (religion, superstition, misinformation, myth) pork
just isn't as popular as beef, turkey, chicken, and the other flavors.
Sales relate directly to the amount of shelf space the products occupy-
pork-based foods would take up shelf space that could be used for a more
popular food."

Phil P. wrote:
"Steve Crane" wrote in message
ups.com...

It's not that pork is more or less expensive than other meat meals. The
range in price for meat meals is waaaaay more variable based on the ash
content than on the species from which it is derived.

I wasn't referring to pork meal-- with the water and fat removed. I was
referring pork meat.

I probably didn't make myself clear. The cost difference between a low
ash meal/meat (beef, pork, chicken, turkey, lamb etc) can be +25% more
expensive than the same meal/meat in a high ash content version. That
difference in cost is greater than the difference in cost between two
different specie meat/meals. The specie of meat/meal does not affect
the cost as much as the ash content.

Steve Crane wrote:

Pork isn't all that common becasue it isn't all that commonly eaten by
humans. Think about how often you eat beef or chicken or turkey and how
seldom you eat pork. As much as I like a good pork roast, it been
months and months since we had one in this house. Reminds me to talk to
the boss (my wife) about that.

I think it depends upon which part of the U.S. (or wherever
else in the world) you live. ...And price, of course. When
I was growing up in Minnesota, we had pork almost as often
as beef, chicken less often, and turkey was reserved for
holidays. (Mostly because, when I was young, they were only
available whole, and the average family had trouble making
away with a twenty-pound turkey before the meat spoiled,
even with electric refrigerators - which not everyone had.)

In more recent years, I've found myself eating chicken much
more often, because it was cheaper than beef or pork, and
WAY cheaper than lamb (mutton might be less expensive, but
it's not often available in the U.S.).

Ted Davis wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 00:10:36 GMT, Diane
wrote:


In article . com,
"Steve Crane" wrote:


Pork isn't all that common becasue it isn't all that commonly eaten by
humans. Think about how often you eat beef or chicken or turkey and how
seldom you eat pork. As much as I like a good pork roast, it been
months and months since we had one in this house. R

What about ham? Same critter.


Read the list of ingredients on a ham package sometime. On second
thought, if you like ham, you might not want to read the ingredients
list.

You're assuming he buys processed ham - as do most of us,
nowadays. The genuine article (which must usually be boiled
before roasting) takes much longer to prepare, and is not so
readily available, but a genuinely "cured" ham contains no
additive but salt (and smoke, if you count the curing process).