Talk:Pork rind

Health Issues

The latter part (quote Men's Health) is very biased, contradicting the message in the previous sentence that pork rind is an unhealthy snack. 128.250.233.191 (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, use of the term "Carb-packed" for crisps is not really encyclopedic... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.162.162.62 (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"Health Issues" does not describe this paragraph. The word "issues" has a negative connotation (i.e. problems concerning). This segment discusses largely the positive nutritional impact eating of pork rinds. Secondly, the statement regarding cholesterol is nonsense. Saturated and unsaturated fats (i.e. calories from fat on a nutritional label) never quantify cholesterol content. The statement that stearic acid is not cholesterol is a confusing, nonsense statement. Pork rinds invariably contain cholesterol as do any fat source from animals. 11:32, 20 February 2014 (EST)

Making two article

I propose that we create two articles. One about 'Pork Rinds' or 'Pork Scratchings' and one about 'Pork Rind'.

'Pork Rind' is the cut of meat. Its also used in the biofeul industry, and in the production of gelatine. Also, according to this article as fish bait.

'Pork Rinds' are the result of cooking this ingredient in a certain way and deserves an article in its own right. I'm sure you wouldn't put potatoes and crisps in the same article.

If I don't receive any objections, I will do this next week. Tom (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.freshersfoods.co.uk/history.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Atkins reference

I think that in referencing the Atkins diet that this particular article should make it somewhat clear that the diet does not recommend eating foods with such a high sodium content. In fact even the levels of fat are to be checked. Foods such as cheese and bacon are to be eaten with 'moderation.' The way this article is written almost makes it seem as if the Atkins/keto/low carb diet endorses eating ridiculously high fat, high sodium, junk food. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Merging from Chicharrónes

It seems that the two articles are about the same thing, eaten by different people. — Pekinensis 16:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems that way, but it isn't. Pork rind is one type of chicharrones. Chicharrón is a Mexican dish, pork rind isn't. --Vizcarra 17:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the Pork rind entry should not be merged with the entries describing the various forms/uses of pork rinds. It is also in question whether to merge with Cracklings, but again this is a unique form of a pork rind. Pork rind is a piece of a slaughtered pig, the skin and fat connected to that skin. I consider cracklings and chicharron as I would cassoulet, a food made with pork rind, thus deserving their own entries. In the popular use of the term Pork rind, most people think of the snack food that is more specifically defined as Cracklings, herein lies the confusion, I think. Pork rind has a more expansive meaning than most people commonly relate it to.--Paultramarine 04:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Crackling is usually meant for flavoring; pork rinds are a snack like popcorn and peanuts.

hey that "somewhat plebian" thing sounds a bit wrong since they are very popular over here, yeah the british upperclass people south east might think that but they are in the minority, besides they don't make good rinds down there. They make good rinds in the black country ,though nice n big. They hold absolutley no social stigma with working class people, but they may do with the upperclass. The old style rinds origonated from here, Im sure of it, I'm taking that line out! is it ethical to steriotype britains based on a sub group of people that make such a minority??. Considering the rather boring dull snobs from up state new york i think i'll just go and say thats what all americans are like????? ya know regarded by the americans as somewhat plebian, just doesnt sound right does it???? cause everyone knows in any country the workin class by far outweigh the upperclass even if we don't get represented in hollywood movies about britain.

Not to be a snob, or anything, but let me quote the above: "...but they may do with the upperclass because most of them are jewish and have religius laws...is it ethical to steriotype britains based on a sub group of people that make such a minority?? [sic]" --Abunai 15:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm from Birmingham, and I know for a fact that there is no social stigma attached to eating pork scratchings around here. Any perceived social stigma must come from people who don't know what they are talking about The Mayor 12:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Indigestable proteins

Someone had posted here that the "not a significant source of protein" on many packs of pork rinds had to do with the allegation that the protein in pork rinds is not digestable. This is demonstrably false; indigestable elements of food would not yeild any calories, and using the nutrional information for Utz pork rinds listed in the article (and in the link a the bottom), it can be shown that the protein does contribute to the calorie count:

In 1/2 oz. serving

• Calories: 80
• Fat: 5 g
• Protein: 8 g

Fat is 9 calories per gram, protein is 4.

5 * 9 + 8 * 4 = 77 calories, which is within the rounding error for the given 80 calories. scot 18:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Footnote on this: I ran across a reference stating that pork rinds contain incomplete proteins, that is they don't contain all essential amino acids. However, only chicken and eggs contain complete proteins, so by that logic nothing but chicken and eggs are complete protein sources unless combined with other foods... scot 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the "not a significant source of protein" labelling is because of the relatively small pack size, and the fact that the recommended portion size is quite small (thanks to the high fat and salt content). 143.252.80.100 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the "FDA and USDA Nutrition Labeling Guide," there is a requirement for the label "not a significant source of protein," when the Protein Efficiency Ratio is less than 40%. This basically means that the label is a requirement when the quality of the protein is very low, and when the protein doesn't contribute significantly to weight gain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.157.45.89 (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Fluzwup, with all due respect, you're wrong about only chicken and eggs containing complete proteins. The article on Complete protein lists a number of other sources that contain complete proteins. However, I think the above poster is on to something about the reason for labeling pork rinds as not being a significant source of protein. This has bugged me for a long time. I wish the USDA and FDA would be more clear about this particular labeling requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerk182 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Replaced POV tag

I replaced the POV tag with a Disputeabout tag. POV tagger seemed concerned about the social stigma of eating pork rinds, which may not be POV if reporting a fact. {(Disputeabout|If social stigma about pork rinds exists)} 144.189.5.201 23:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought the dispute was whether or not the stigma was less in the South. It's still a pretty strong stigma. Pork rinds are sometimes viewed by the middle classes as a lower-class food, like chitlins. -THB 16:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Rind vs Rinds

This article talks about "pork rind" singular, which I have never heard used in real life. I have only ever heard "pork rinds". --WhiteDragon 20:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think both are correct. The definition of "rind"is A tough outer covering such as bark, the skin of some fruits, or the coating on cheese or bacon. But I have most often heard "rinds". Prometheus^-X303- 20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it sounds awkward and should be changed. Most other similar snack food pages are plural - crackers, chips/fries, etc. 69.85.180.65 06:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Please merge the following: '''Crax''' (also known as '''cracklings''') is a product of agricultural [[rendering (industrial)|rendering]]. When [[bone]]s, [[offal]] and connective tissue are separated from useful [[meat]], they are typically desiccated and ground. Crax is sometimes then used in other products, such as an agricultural nutrient. An off-market use for pork crax is as an effective [[deer]] repellent. [[Category:Meat processing]] Entire (soon-to-be) former content of Crax. Dysmorodrepanis 09:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it have to be fried?

In certain regions in China, Pork skins are either boiled or roasted and eaten. USER:cecikierk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.20.186 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article deals with two related topics: pork rind, a food ingredient; and a fried snack made from that ingredient. Pork rind has other culinary uses, and needs some text referring to pigskin. It also needs a section on how the hair is removed (when it is removed). --Una Smith (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Better now. The article content still needs to be split, possibly into Fried pork rind and Fatback. --Una Smith (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Čvarci merge discussion

A merge tag was added to Čvarci, suggesting to merge it here. 18:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The subject has enough significant coverage in multiple secondary sources to have its own article. -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct page name.

It appears Pork Scratchings were invented in the UK (West Country) so following that the article should be titles Pork Scratchings as with other articles involving development in countries retaining their original spelling/name? --109.157.102.132 (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This article should be called 'Pork Scratchings'.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Reasonable doubt has been cast on the applicability of WP:TIES, so WP:RETAIN applies. Favonian (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Pork rind → Pork scratchings – Pork rind is the name of the raw material, and should be linked to fatback. Pork scratching is the name of the snack in the UK, where it was invented. The same snack is called pork rinds in the US. Therefore the most appropriate treatment, and to avoid confusion, pork rinds should link to this page (to be called pork scratchings), and we should have disambig. at the top of both pages. Tom (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - country of origin, reasonable argument. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• 'Oppose WP:ENGVAR, and it's called "pork rinds" in Canada as well. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support per ENGVAR; country of origin should win out in naming disputes. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The article started at "pork rind", and it is fairly prominent in the USofA. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support as per Sceptre. 86.178.203.33 (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, for two reasons. First, WP:ENGVAR should apply here. We have two (or more) regional words for the same product, so don't move it to another for no good reason. Second, I'm not sure that the "country of origin" argument is even true. Look at this ngram: "pork scratchings" doesn't even hit the radar until the 1970s, while "fried pork rinds" registers from the 1950s. Dohn joe (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RETAIN unless evidence for need of move is presented. Note User:Dohn joe's comment above. —  AjaxSmack  01:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Evidence regarding country of origin.

Was looking about pork scratchings and saw that Freshers Foods (a snack based company in the UK) has a section regarding the origins of Pork Scratchings. http://freshersfoods.com/history-of-pork-scratchings/

The sources under the heading Comments and Reminiscences suggest that pork scratching were eaten/originated in the UK, showing at an earlier date than shown in the booksearch by Dohnjoe. 109.153.171.8 (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Pork rind isn't shkvarki

There is a link to russian wiki tat links to the article about шкварки(shkvarki). In my opinion shkvarki is not equal to pork rinds. Shkvarki is made of lard or fat meat and thert may be some (not a big amount of) rind. As far as i understand pork rind does not consist any lard or meat. Assuming we may conclude that link to russian wiki is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.234.120.205 (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose shkvarki is what the artile Čvarci is about. It might be reasonable to extend that article adding Ukrainian/Russian cooking tradition. Off-shell (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

A New Article

I agree and think that we should add another article. I am not informed enough to make this article, but if I could start it, and some could help fill it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.177.188 (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Issues

Many of the references in this article are from news sources instead of scholarly articles. This poses a big problem for the Nutritional Value section since we end up with non-peer reviewed scientific material in an encyclopedia. I suggest someone do some more research for this section and find some scholarly sources to reference. Until then there should be a banner above the page informing the reader of this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.211.126.73 (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)