Can cats not eat pork?

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. )

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).

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

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.


That certainly explains why Porterhouse Steak is about twice the price per
lb. of pork loin even though they have about the same ash content and
protein to ash ratio. Thanks for clearing that up.

http://www.maxshouse.com/Clinical_Nu...RTHS_STEAK.pdf

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

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 11:43:28 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:



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).

I am well aware of real hams - they were still readily obtainable when
I was growing up half a century ago. Salt, pepper, and carcinogenic
smoke ... some also used sugar and I have heard the maple something
was used in some places. They taste good when properly prepared, but
are hardly safer than the synthetic modern ones that I was assuming
most readers would encounter. The "country" ham I can readily obtain
locally is from California (half a continent away) and is "cured with
salt, brown sugar, sodium nitrate, black pepper, sodium nitrite"; and
it's labeled to imply, but not say, that it is hickory smoked. I give
the most ham fanatic of my cats only tiny tastes.

Then there is bacon.

--
T.E.D. )

Ajanta wrote:

Quite clearly, cat food seems to be derived not from what cats would
eat but from what humans eat: beef, chicken, turkey, tuna, etc.

However, I also notice a conspicuous absence of one very popular and
common human staple from cat foods: pork.

Why is that? Can cats not eat pork? Is it harmful to them?

Cats can only eat pork if they can catch it...

http://www.bigtex.com/newsroom/stori...acingpigs.html

I'm rooting for Porky.