Talk:Rennet

Rennet on ingredients lists

If a cheese in the United States lists "rennet" on the ingredients list, is that necessarily animal rennet? Is there a way to tell whether the rennet used in a particular cheese is vegetarian? I have some vegetarian friends, and one of them was telling me about avoiding all cheeses that listed rennet.-- Creidieki 4 July 2005 16:03 (UTC)

My impression has always been that if it simply lists "rennet" as an ingredient, there is no way to know if it is vegetarian, and it quite likely is not. I would have assumed that cheese marked as "kosher" would have to be vegetarian, but according to this page, http://www.kosherquest.org/bookhtml/CHEESE.htm , that is not the case. Anyway, not to be preachy but if you're concerned enough to ask this question you should do the right thing and go vegan! --Brian Z 03:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The leniency allowing the use of rennet from Kosher animals to make Kosher cheese is from Conservative Judaism. Orthodox Jews consider the addition of Rennet to be a disallowed mixing of milk & meat. Since most hechshers are run by Orthodox groups, you're pretty safe in saying that a Kosher cheese contains no animal products besides milk. Elipongo 21:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In Australia I know that if it contains non-animal rennet it will definitely be marketed as a "vegetarian" cheese.

I have never seen "rennet" listed on anything in any way, so my guess is no. --Bky1701 10:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I see it every now and again. Trader Joe's usually says whether it is microbial or animal derived. Anyways, do cheeses always say if there is rennet (of any kind) because I often just see "enzymes" without any specifics? The Ungovernable Force 01:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Rennet Sources

A recent edit added camels and giraffes as possible sources of rennet. A quick web search turns up serious references to camel rennet, but none to giraffe rennet. Is this actually done or even possible? Some sort of reference would be good here, 'cause if true, it's kind of interesting. Mattdm 20:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The best coagulation for milk from a special mammal is done with the rennet from this mammal. So calf rennet is not very good for camels milk - there will be no real coagulation. But there is limmited slaughtering of young camels, so there is no camles rennet available. With genetic technology it is now possible to produce a camel rennet for all those regions that are producing cheese from camels milk. Giraffe and dolphin and whatever seems to be a joke from someone funny minded. like: www.savetherennets.com Years ago there were trials with pigs rennet which caused many many tons of cheese to be thrown away. Similar thing is whith chicken pepsin. hope this answers your question - if you need more information please tell me (Bioren 14:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC))

in humans is rennin is source of curdling?

i have read that rennin(enzyme is secreted as prorenin) transforms milk protien i.e cassien to calcium paracasseinate and chymotrypsinogen also do the same but rennin works in pH 5-6 and this conditions are found in infants. so my question is which is the source cuedling in human adult? plz verify anil

in humans is rennin is source of curdling?

Human adults as all grown up mammals are no longer able to digest only milk - this will cause diarrhoea. The digestion enzyme pepsin will still coagulate a nice quantity of milk and pepsin is the proteolytic enzyme which is produced when the alimentation changes from milk to other foodstuff. - Hope this helps. (Bioren 14:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC))

Creeping Charlie

An anon recently added this plant into the list of rennet substitutes. Please verify. `'mikka (t) 00:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Renet Limtations

"Natural Rennet is a limited product anyway - only about 35% of the worlds cheese production can be done with original natural calf rennet so there is a need for artificial coagulants especially for cheap and lower quality cheeses." -- what is this supposed to mean? In particular, what does "can be done" mean?

Rennet Limitations

"can be done" means that only 35% of the worlds cheese production comes from the coagulation of milk with natural calf rennet. This is because there are not more stomachs available and therefore the rennet production is limited. The availability of stomachs depends on the consumption of veal. No animal neither calf nor giraffe (this in nonsense anyway, because there is no giraffe milk) is ever slaughtered because of the stomach.

Of course there's giraffe milk -- they're mammals. I'm not saying that it's not nonsense, but your reasoning isn't valid. I'd love to see a reference for cheese made this way, though. Matthew Miller (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC) :

Therefore and for the satisfaction of customers needs (cheaper, cheaper, cheapest production) about 65% of the worlds cheese production "is done" by coagulation of the milk with cheaper artificial coagulants. (Bioren 14:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC))

It is for this reason that I put a {{fact}} template on "The most common source of rennet[citation needed] is the abomasum..." From what you write, this is unlikely to be true. --Craig Stuntz 14:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is because rennet is ex definitonem the natural product and everything else is artificial coagulants or artificially produced enzyms. All of the natural rennet comes from calves (chym. + pepsin) and cows (pepsin) and some is produced from goats and lambs. The rest like pigs or chicken is not to be used by serious people for serious cheese. kind regards (Bioren 14:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC))

Precise meaning of "rennet" vs. what is on a cheese package

Bioren (talk • contribs) wrote this on my talk page:

I know somethig about rennet and about interests of big companies and all that stuff and I know that there is alot of miss-information going round - especially considering the information of vegetarians. I wrote "the most common" because rennet is ex difinitionem natural rennet and 99.9% of the rennet comes from cows and calves.

Everything else is an artificial coagulant or chymosin produced by genetically modified bacteria or yeast or mould. So these things are rennet-substitutes.

Well, this is perhaps something the article should clarify, but realize that this terminology, while perhaps technically precise, is not how cheese is labeled here in the U.S. There is a variety of terms used in ingredient lists on cheese packages, with, for example, "enzymes" and "microbial rennet" used to describe different packaging of the same cheese. When one sees "rennet" on a package here, it isn't safe to assume that the listed ingredient is in fact calf rennet or something different. Similarly, if you see "enzymes" on the ingredient list you can't tell what the precise ingredient was. If a cheese actually says "calf rennet" or "microbial rennet" then you have a good idea of what you're getting, but these terms are less common on cheese packages.

I added this line to the article this morning:

There are also non-animal sources of rennet.

Would you prefer it read, "There are also non-animal-derived substitutes for rennet which are commonly, if imprecisely, called 'rennet.'"

That strikes me as a bit more precise but too wordy. --Craig Stuntz 15:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not freaky about this detail - really not. Rennet - any rennet - is considered as processing aid and not as food additive and therefore naturally exit different opinions on labelling - as I wrote: ...you will find about 0,0003 grams of rennet in 1 kg of cheese! - this is nearly a homeopathic dosage. If I was a vegetarian I´d rather stop eating cheese or change to ANALOG-CHEESE which is already used on pizza and in saussages without indicating it. Maybe Tofu is also a nice alternative considering that for the milk calves have to be born and killed! So as we say here in Austria: either full or nothing - half is not possible. kind regards wolfgang (Bioren 16:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC))

Forgive my pedantry, but you changed this to "The most common source for natural rennet..." Would "The most common source for animal rennet..." be clearer to the casual reader? --Craig Stuntz 19:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes off course - will do so (Wolfgang 15:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

Giving up the cheese

Ewww...does most rennet really come from slaughterhouse animals? And especially newborns?!?!?!? I'm cutting out the solid dairy from my diet. Bye bye cheese, even tho I used to love you. VegScene

From the article: Only about 35% of world-wide cheese production can be done by the use of animal rennet; 65% is already done with other coagulants. --Craig Stuntz 17:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No - you do not have to give up cheese. You will find enough cheeses and also whey products coming from microbial rennet or genetic rennet - as long as you accept that calves have to be killed for the milk production. No calf: no milk - much milk: many calves - and not all of them will become further milk-cows. But this is going in somehow philosophical regions - like: corn-harvesters are killing young rabbits, bambies and other animals on the free fields - this is a by-product of corn-production - so: is corn still vegetarian? And I think there might be also better examples for what I want to say with this. (Wolfgang 10:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC))

So, what does a vegetarian in the US have to do to ensure the are not eating GM-derived cheese? 69.87.199.92 21:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Look for organic cheese - there should not be any GM products in these cheeses. Look for cheeses produced with microbial rennet. Or look and ask for cheeses produced with calf-rennet if you accept my above statement - there is no meat in the rennet - it is only purified enzymes. (Wolfgang 11:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

just an addition: according to official figures in the EC, the average livetime of a milk cow is 2.7 lactation periods. In this time she produces possibly 27,000 litres of milk - high performance and lactation period goes over 1 year and gives birth to 2.7 calves. As the calves are killed and the milk cow also, we have 1 cow = 500 kg and 2.7 calves = 2.7 x 80 kg = 716 kg in total of dead cow for possibly 27,000 x 10% = 2,700 kg of cheese. So 1 kg of cheese causes something like 265 g of dead cow. No matter if it is produced with "vegetarian" rennet or not. Who was asking for 0,000002 grams of calf enzyme used for the production of 1 kg of cheese? ;-) Bioren (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC).

Alternative coagulants - source needed for 35% claim

note: this discussion was originally copied from User talk:kotra because it is more relevant here -kotra 04:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi - your request is not that easy to fulfill. OECD says: cheese production 2004 world wide 17.9 million tons of cheese - http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/milk/supplychainforum/pdf/pvavra.pdf . One ton is aprox. 2 kg of rennet with 165 IMCU. Worldwide need: 35.8 million kg of rennet. 1 stomach is aprox. 1 kg of rennet. Available stomachs of young suckling calfs and milk-fed calfs worldwide aprox. max. 12 million pieces - this is a fact that I know from my job. At http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/X6121E/x6121e02.htm you can find the complete cattle population worldwide - reduce for India, Bangladesh, Brasil (meat production) and many other countries and estimate the percentage of calfs killed for meat than you will arrive at these figures. So how to source this? US cheese-production is about 95% microbial or GMO rennet - claims of Christian Hansen and other producers of artificial rennets - same for UK - this is already 36% of the worlds cheese production. Believe me these cheap products are fed to the people with min. 65% of the worlds cheeses. So if you tell me how - I will try to source this claim. But this article about rennet is supposed to inform about rennet and artificial coagulants and should not be blown up into a study about worlds agricultural production!? I can of course also tell the people - including the source - that the americans eat 95% of their cheese made with artificial coagulants because of price, religion or vegetarian reasions - but I wanted this article to be objective and informing and balanced (Wolfgang 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

Unfortunately then, the 35% figure seems to be original research, which is not admissable on Wikipedia. I applaud your efforts, but by your description, the figure also sounds inaccurate. Rennet comes from only one of the four stomachs of a calf, as I'm sure you're aware, so your maximum of 12 million available stomachs (which is also a disputabe figure, as it is not sourced) would actually be 3 million. Not to mention that "estimating" the percentage of calves killed for meat worldwide with any accuracy at all is impossible for non-experts like you and I. That's why original research isn't admissable on Wikipedia. -kotra 23:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

never trust statistics that you did not fake by yourself............. so I will try again: if you have a look at http://www.indexmundi.com/en/commodities/agricultural/animal-numbers-cattle/ you will find the figures about total calf slaughter worldwide - which was 2006 something around 18.5 mio. heads - according to your calculation 74 mio stomachs of whom again only 18.5 mio are rennet stomachs. Than you have to know that only a part of these calves is milk-fed, another part is grain-fed. For rennet you can only use the milk-fed ones - otherwise you only have pepsin in the rennet and no chymosin. Than you have to consider, that in many countries there are no big slaughter houses where the stomachs can be collected in sanitary conditions. Then: if you look at http://www.indexmundi.com/en/commodities/agricultural/dairy-cheese/2006.html you can see the cheese production world-wide (the figures differ from OECD - but no matter). 2 kg of rennet (165 IMCU) for 1 ton of cheese, 50% of the calves milk-fed - 1 fourth stomach is aprox 1 kg of rennet 165 IMCU. With this simple calculation you arrive 25.6 mio kg of rennet need and 9,2 mio kg of natural rennet which is 34%.

So again - here are the figures - you should show me now how to but them into the article about rennet without blowing this article up to something different - or you also could draw back your claim(Wolfgang 12:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)).

I would dispute a few points: First, you assume that 2 kg of rennet are used for every ton of cheese (or on average). I would like to see documentation for that because it seems to be that the amount of rennet used for each of the hundreds of types of cheese varies. Some cheeses use a relatively large amount of rennet, and some use none (paneer, for example). The 2 kg per ton must be the average amount of rennet used for all cheeses worldwide. Secondly, assuming that 9.2 million kg of rennet is used is also flawed because, as you noted, many of the available stomachs are not used for rennet for sanitary (or other) reasons. Finally, you haven't provided sources for the 50% of calves being milk-fed claim, or the fourth stomach yeilding on average 1 kg of rennet.

Considering all these, the 34% estimate may either be too high or too low. I can see you know a good deal about the dairy industry, but facts, especially statistics, must be taken from published outside sources only, not Wikipedia editors like us. That is, for better or worse, Wikipedia's official policy No Original Research. -kotra 04:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Masterfoods edits

There have been a number of edits in the past two days to add details of Masterfoods and its use of animal rennet. Is such a section really necessary in an article on rennet? Surely other manufacturers use it, but this would not be the place to list each and every example of its use. IMHO. 217.194.34.103 12:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would disagree, but apparently they stopped using rennet almost immediately because of protests. So it's moot anyway now. -kotra 22:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - for me this is no more objective information - this is a kind of war of vegetarians against the rest of the world. Information about this war may fit in an article about Masterfoods, Vegetarians, .....

Rennet is an animal based product - this is an article about rennet. By the way: Rennet is not used for the production of chocolate-bars. Whey and/or whey-powder is used for this. And this whey may come from cheese production with rennet or rennet substitutes. Many products are produced with whey or whey-powder. Would you agree to start a discussion about baby-food and many other products in an article about rennet?

Wikipedia furnishes really all kinds of objective and useful informations - so I can not accept false information in this article. Therefore I deleted the production of chocolate bars. Kind regards from someone who does not care if the cheese on the (beef)-cheese-burger is vegetarian or not. (Wolfgang 06:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Then you agree with us. We are all for removing the Masterfoods candy bar information. We are all in agreement. -kotra 21:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Statistics mismatch

At the time of writing the article states (Traditional Method) "1 gram of this solution should then coagulate 2000 to 4000 grams of milk" and (Modern Method) "1 kg of rennet would have the ability to coagulate 15,000 litres of milk". This would make the traditionally extracted rennet significantly more efficient than the artficial rennet with Traditional at 1:2000-1:4000 and Modern at 1:15. Is this really the case? Or is it a mismatch in the units (grams and kilograms)? --DijitalJB 07:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but I think that the modern method of animal rennet production (note: this is not artificial) yields a less concentrated solution. 151.112.57.22 17:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe my writing of 15,000 is misunderstood - it means fifteenthousand litres.

so: 1 gram coagulates 2000 to 4000 grams means: 1:2000 to 1:4000

1 kg = 1000 grams, 15,000 litres = 15000000 grams (not considering the density of the milk) - this means

1000:15000000 = 1:15000 - this activity can also be much higher - depends on the concentration. So the traditional method delivers a weak but sufficiently strong product. OK? (Wolfgang 07:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Unused reference

Here is a reference that was deleted recently along with the statement it backed up. It seems to be a good reference, and this article is lacking in references, so I'm putting it here in case there are statements in the article that can be sourced using it.

"EC report on Safty of Rennet", European Commission, April 2002.

-kotra 22:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

this reference is rather very specific (pharmaceutical lactose) and has not very much to do with the common use of rennet (cheese production). Especially because this reference is talking of e.g. "rennet" from swine - swine-pepsin - which is not used in any serious cheese production. An information like this might for different religious groups lead to missunderstandings - or - already led to a misunderstanding like this if you look at: Revision as of 10:41, 21 May 2007 88.96.10.97 (Talk) .......... however they can also come from adult cattle, small ruminants (e.g. goats & sheep) and pigs

maybe you should also use this one: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/ssc/out265_en.pdf

Bioren 17:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is about rennet, not cheesemaking, so all types of rennet and any notable use of it, for cheese or otherwise, would be pertinent to this article. Your reference also seems good. Thanks for providing it. -kotra 18:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case I have to agree with you. -Bioren 07:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative coagulants

The "Alternative coagulants" section has got nothing to do with rennet. How about moving it somewhere else, like curd, which redirects from coagulation (milk). Horatio 08:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The Alternative coagulants section describes non-animal types of rennet. The subject of this article is all types of rennet, not just animal rennet. Perhaps the "alternative coagulants" title is a bit misleading because it implies that they are separate from rennet. However, that isn't the case. The cheese I buy lists in its ingredients "vegetable rennet" or "microbial rennet", not "vegetable coagulant" or "microbial rennet simulator". -kotra 04:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a website that uses a fermented milk product called Kefir as an "alternative coagulant" ... you can easily use a couple cups of kefir as an alternative... It actually makes the process of making the cheese much easier. I just use about a cup or so for a gallon or so. Instructions are posted by a Dominic N Anfiteatro on his website http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/~dna/kefir_cheese.html

Hope this helps70.164.194.201 (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

bitterness with microbial - fungal - rennet

please help as I am not an expert in editing and fullfilling all requests of wikipedia experts I kindly ask some-one - maybe you KOTRA? - to put in this citation:

http://www.lelait-journal.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/lait/abs/2004/05/L0420/L0420.html

"The flavor and taste of cheeses produced with microbial rennets tend towards some bitterness, especially after longer maturation periods" - was a little bit understating the facts if you talk to cheese-experts from countries where both is used: microbial coagulant and natural rennet - but I wanted to remain balanced Bioren 15:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice this until now. Your reference is very appropriate, thanks a lot for adding it! I've expanded the citation information a little, using Template:Cite_journal. -kotra (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom Zinnen ref

What is up with this ref? It doesn't look like a reference but two people's names. Does it belong? -Verdatum (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I got it figured out. It looks like it's supposed to be a continuation of the previous ref. Since credentials are not nessisary in author attributions in a ref, I trimmed it and tacked it onto the previous ref. Obviously, please correct me if I'm mistaken. -Verdatum (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

GE vs. Vegetarians

This is not my claim, but I cut this talk from the main page, felt like sticking it in talk: You keep on saying these genetically engineered products are mostly suitable for vegetarians. Are you trying to kill the vegetarians? 24.77.212.250 (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(comment originally added by 121.97.247.219 (talk · contribs) at 20:45, 13 May 2009)

Speaking as a vegetarian, I'm a bit confused by their statement. If the rennet is produced without the use of any animal products, is it not suitable for vegetarians? "The so-called "GM rennets" are suitable for vegetarians if there was no animal based alimentation used during the production in the fermenter." is pretty clear on this. -kotra (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

GM rennet in Europe

The article currently states "GMO-Microbial rennet (see below) is used more often in industrial cheesemaking in North America today because it is less expensive than animal rennet, whereas cheese from Europe is more likely to be made from animal rennet due to tradition."

While this is true up to a point, an important factor inhibiting the use of GM rennet in Europe is public hostility to GM products generally. This makes the marketing of cheese made with GM rennet difficult, so manufacturers don't bother. Later the article states "By 2008, approximately 80 - 90% of commercially made cheeses in the United States and Great Britain were made utilizing GMO-based rennet." This isn't a helpful statistic as the cheese industries in the two countries are very different, and there is far more opposition to GM in Britain than the US. I don't have any refs or numbers though, so won't modify the article. --Ef80 (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done some research via Google and haven't located a source that separately lists % GM usage for USA and Britain. Thanks Ef80 for calling attention to this. NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

User 75.23.36.134 has cited an external link that gives a 90% figure for North American usage of the GM rennet. The source used by madisonmarket.com is the "culture companies", but our wiki article footnote refers to the American Cheese Society as the source. I'm not sure why. http://www.madisonmarket.com/index.php?page=rennet

My proposal: Until we get confirmation about GM usage in Britain, we should refer in the article only to North America. By the way, I have noticed the same statement in Manufacturing_of_cheddar_cheese NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I will remove the Britain reference. I'm not sure the article really needs UK figures, as the US market will be much bigger, and the purpose of the figure is simply to illustrate the widespread adoption of GM rennet. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Photographs

It would be great to include photos of rennet (liquid, tablets) as it is actually used by cheesemakers. I checked Commons and the 2 images aren't applicable. I'll read up on the topic of fair use and wiki image guidelines -- and then look for images on the internet. Does anybody have some helpful advice for me? NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Precise age of the calves

What is the precise age or age range of the calves which provide rennet for making cheese? A day? A month? Six months? I feel the term "young calves" is not adequate. 93.97.15.83 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It'd be helpful to add the adjective "unweaned". It's included in dictionary definitions of "rennet". From yourdictionary.com: "the membrane lining the stomach of an unweaned animal, esp. the fourth stomach of a calf." NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I could deliver enough information as I have an international rennet producer at hand. But if I deliver real figures, someone always is questionning them and asking for proves. If I put in this company as prove, someone is deleting this again - same with pictures - so the thing starts to get somehow annoying. Unweaned is just necessary for the highest quality of rennet - plus 95% chymosin content. There are also grain-fed calves used for approximately 50% chymosin content. Even bovine stomachs are used for 15-20% of chymosin content - especially in the north like Sweden or Norway. Bobby calves are killed after 5 - 10 days because of the milk production. Milk-fed calves - or calves fed with milk substitute for the production of veal are killed after aprox. 6 months. Bioren (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC).