Talk:Gelatin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 chicken leg gelatin 2 hooves 3 swimmers 4 BSE/CJD 5 edits of 26 Jan 2005 6 banned? 7 Gelatin in capsules and vegetarians 8 amino acid composition 9 medicinal properties 10 art 11 Contradictions in gelatin articles 12 Lack of technical detail 13 How to measure gelatin bloom 14 Obvious information 15 Student project underway here (Dec 4-15, 2006) 16 Reviews 16.1 Review by Vivek 16.2 Review by Jon 16.3 Evan's Review 16.4 Avani's review 16.5 Will's review 17 Image copyrights

[edit] chicken leg gelatin

gelatin from chicken legs (217.24.158.1)

It's possible to make chicken stock jelly at home, but less than 5% of commercial gelatin is made from "other sources". Of that, only a fraction is poultry, of that only a fraction is legs - not really worth to mention. Femto 14:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] hooves

Don't let the information on some manufacturer's websites fool you - their reasoning is quite circular, essentially saying that hooves are keratin, so what isn't keratin can't be hoof.

There's much more in hooves than just the keratinized sheath: look at http://www.abdn.ac.uk/biologicalsci/research/physiology.shtml and http://www.naturalhorsetrim.com/Section_14_full.htm for longitudinal cross sections of a cow and horse hoof, respectively. Most of it appears to be bone, cartilage, or other connective tissue, actually, which contain plenty of collagen. Enough to obtain gelatin from, as evidenced by the existance of "calf's foot jelly".

I think the real reason we talk about "hooves" and not about "chopped-off feet as a whole" is, it obviously sounds better, and those parts are easier made into bone meal and fertilizer than into gelatin anyway. Femto 13:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is important to distinguish the 'foot' from the 'hoof'. The difference is roughly the same as 'fingertip' and 'fingernail'. By the way, hooves and horns do not go into bone meal. (I work with the rendering industry). ike9898 16:10, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I meant what else they're made into then. The dictionary isn't a big help in making a distinction here, as it just lists both definitions of "hoof" as valid. No matter what we wrote, it can be considered wrong in one way or the other. The simplest thing seems to both leave hooves out of the listing of possible sources of collagen, and not to mention them beyond their no-use for commercial gelatin. Femto 19:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: the recent >> horns and hooves do not yield gelatin

Hoof and hooves are used synonymously, but only "hoof" (collective plural) is made exclusively of keratin. "The hoof" is ambiguous, and "hooves" are the complex structure of the foot consisting of the outer keratinized sheath, as well as cartilage and bone. At least by my definition, which I seem to share with the above-linked cross-section image titled "bovine hoof", and a professor of meat science stating that gelatin can be extracted from bones and hooves. http://beef.unl.edu/FAQ/200412130.shtml So a statement that hooves do not yield gelatin is misleading at least, and it either must be clarified in full or should not be mentioned at all. Femto 18:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] swimmers

Whoa. First I thought some joker added a reference to "synchronized underwater basket weaving"... Nice addition, who would have thought. Femto 14:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] BSE/CJD

"Some discussions"? "Few concerns"? Come on... Independent of the actual risk, BSE had (and still has) a severe international impact on food trade. Be specific; the BSE/CJD/prion wikilinks very much helped to set the context. True, BSE may be assumed 'managed' now. This safety comes from the price of a BSE test for every single head of cattle (at least here in Europe) but it does not mean that BSE is "very unlikely" to be present. The infection risk is 'low enough' for meat, and negligible to zero for gelatin, which should only be worth mentioning because it's so often a (semi)hidden meat-derived ingredient, but there has been much concern. Just curious, which 2004 study are we talking about? Femto 13:34, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just added a reference to the study. The last author, Taylor, is a very prominent researcher in this field. ike9898 21:57, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] edits of 26 Jan 2005

• Feet/hooves, see above. The keratin content can't be the main reason why they're not used. For what it's worth, Knox's early gelatin was "Sparkling Granulated Calves Foot Gelatine".
• The year isn't needed, the numbers are not really of 2004. It's an average estimate which shouldn't outdate too soon. (I've found various sources from some 220-ish to 273 thousand tons per year.)
• It's the dissolving that's instant, not the gelling.
• I've taken out "Other plant starches can act as thickeners..." because it isn't really related to gelatin.
• It's important to me to mention that there isn't any vegetable source for gelatin at all.
• I hope you weren't too attached to all of the subheadings, which were a bit excessive, IMHO. The food/technical/other subdivisions and the bulleted lists should suffice for now to loosen up the text.

Femto 16:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] banned?

I just reverted a comment that gelatin is banned from food in some countries. This may be true, but if it is can we at least name one or two of them? It will be much easier to determine if the statement is actually true that way. I don't think anyone here is familiar with the food regulations worldwide, but if we name specific countries, it won't be too hard to verify whether or not the statement is true. (I'm not convinced that it is) ike9898 18:50, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gelatin in capsules and vegetarians

I was surprised to find that an animal product is used in the packaging of many medications. Is it possible for vegetarians to request that prescription medications be placed in other types of capsules? Are some people unable to go strictly vegetarian just because they can't get their medications? -- Creidieki 4 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)

There is a growing market for hydroxypropyl methylcellulose veg-caps, though with currently at two or three times the price of the gelatin variant (not for the whole medication of course, only for the capsules, a cent more or so), manufacturers have little incentive to use them by default unless more people begin to ask for them. Given that the most common response to even the ingredients of everyday gummy bears is still either "Yeah, whatever." or "Eew, really?", but not "I knew that!", it's still a long way to vegetarian paradise. Femto 5 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)

[edit] amino acid composition

I just added a text and reference for the approximate amino acid composition of gelatin under medical uses section. Someone wrote that a gelatine only diet had made several people dead in the 1970's. Is there are reference to this such as news paper article or such? Bedrupsbaneman 18:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the one who initially added it, but I'm convinced of its authenticity and can provide these references. Quote http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NationalList/TAPReviews/Gelatin.pdf [referring to this article Modified fast: A sometime solution to a weighty problem. FDA Consumer (April): 10-17.]

During the 1970s, the low protein quality of collagen-based 'Liquid Protein' diet products led to Federal regulatory action (Vanderveen and Mitchell, 1981). The Food and Drug Administration investigated the deaths of 17 relatively young people, 13 with diets whose sole caloric intake came from a liquid collagen or gelatin solution. The FDA subsequently developed regulations that modified the label requirements of such diet products (US FDA, 1990).

Femto 21:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] medicinal properties

come to think of it, it is probably more stringent to move the amino acid composition to a new section, lets call it "chemical properties". Make a new heading for e.g. "gelatine diet" and keep the medicinal properties for only that. As far as I know gelatine is formally only used as a food additive. Bedrupsbaneman 09:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The manufacturers make a clear point of calling gelatin a "foodstuff" and grouping it not with "food additives" like other thickeners, colors, or such. Though, not being much of a food by itself, this protein content and amino acid composition is just what gelatin is (more or less formally) advertised for. It seems promising to have two separate sections. One strictly uncontroversial for its chemical and physical properties as a substance, and based about that, one that details the pros and cons of the medicinal and dietary properties and the advertising and health culture around it. Femto 11:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] art

Should the art group gelatin also be mentioned on this page? (http://www.gelitin.net)

It's two different topics, so provided it meets the notability criterion, it should get a separate Gelatin (art group) article, with only a disambiguation note here. Femto 10:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictions in gelatin articles

The gelatin article says that "contrary to popular belief, hooves and horns are not commonly used." And then in the gelatin dessert article, it says "hooves and horns are commonly used." (I think those are the exact quotes.) I see there's some debate about this, but what's up with the total contradiction?

It appears there was simply a word missing in this edit of gelatin dessert. (edited) The debate so far wasn't about whether or not (parts of) horns and hooves get used in commercial-scale gelatin manufacturing (that seems rather uneconomic in any case), but if it's possible at all. Some gelatin manufacturer's websites, probably in an attempt to dispel the persistent rumor, claim that horns and hooves are not used "because they're made of keratin", which is an oversimplification. Femto 20:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of technical detail

In the production segment it is explained merely that gelatin is made through a few kinds of production methods, but it is not explained how the production methods works. It is possible to create their own articles that explained how to do curing, acid and alkali processes, but it would not help this article. Wikipedia needs detailed technical articles which can function as a handbook and not merely as a general knowledge source, to explain what something means. This is one function of combined knowledge, and without it this works only as an occational entertainment center. /====

[edit] How to measure gelatin bloom

moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science where it may get better answers Femto 15:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious information

It says in the introduction: "Gelatin melts when heated and solidifies when cooled again."

That should be obvious. This basic chemical phenomenan occurs with every substance in the universe... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.251.240.113 (talk • contribs) .

...such as wood? Or other protein substances like egg white for example which denature and decompose? Femto 20:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Student project underway here (Dec 4-15, 2006)

This article on Gelatin, particularly the section on gelatin manufacture, is being edited by User:GBoran as part of a WP:SUP student project on Downstream_processing at Cornell University. This article is slated for scientific peer review by the user's classmates and instructor over the next two weeks and will be finalized (for the purposes of the class) by 15 Dec 2006. If you would like to help, please hold off from the normal "bold editing" process until after December 15, and instead leave comments and suggestions for GBoran here on the article discussion page. Your thoughtful review will be very much appreciated! And thanks, Femto for your kind words on the history page. Gokhan, take a look, those were meant for you.

Jean Hunter, instructor, BEE 464 susato 17:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews

[edit] Review by Vivek

Hey Gokhan, I think your article has a lot of good information. It just seems a bit wordy. If there is any possible way to add some visuals that would also help. Some tables will also help if you need them. For the most part, everything you said made sense to me and it was a good article. Just be careful with your format and add some visuals, it will definitely improve the readability of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vivek216 (talk • contribs) 17:13, December 5, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Jon

I thought this article was very good. I've been using Word to edit articles for gramar because I think it's easier to insert comments that way, so I'll email that to you. As far as content, I thought it was very good and had a lot of information in it. I thought it was well organized and easy to read. Good Job!

Jhsuosu 23:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evan's Review

Wow Gokhan, your article is really awesome. I took my cue from Jon and used MS Word to review your article. I sent it to you with my comments. It is a bit wordy, and pretty scientific, but other than that it is really great, with a lot of great information!!

Evjammin 07:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avani's review

Very detailed article, lots of info. You might not need so many internal links for simple words like 'meat' or 'leather' but just for those words where the average student without a science background may not know the definitions. Good description of the processing method. I agree with some of the previous comments about perhaps making it too wordy...you might want to simplify it just a bit. Keep in mind this is Wikipedia and not a scientific paper :) Overall well written

Snickerr291 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will's review

Gokhan, this is a really great article. You packed in so much great information, while keeping your article easy to follow and understand. I really like how you effectively broke down your subject into the main sections, and expanded each section with very sufficient detail. Overall, it’s a very cohesive article. I especially enjoyed your production section. Although it was long, I think you covered everything you needed to cover and not too much. My only suggestions would be to perhaps reword or even cut out the very technical sentences in the Physical properties section, and also, have you considered reworking the Edible gelatins section to fit it under food uses? If anything, the Edible gelatins section is the only one that seems a little empty. Again, great job!

Wwc26 02:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyrights

The images Image:Gelatin structural chain.gif and Image:Aa composition of gelatin.gif are taken from http://www.gelatin.com? What is their copyright status? You need to prove that they're compatible with Wikipedia's free license, otherwise the images will have to be deleted; Wikipedia cannot accept unfree media taken from other websites. Femto 19:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message! I do not know their copy right status as I checked so while uploading the images. The same images can also be seen at the following web site: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-5/Gelatin.html I did not notice any notes about copy rights of these images. And I do not know how I can prove or what I need to do to prove that they are compatible with Wikipedia's free license. If you can help me on this, I would be glad. Thanks. GBoran 05:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The images at madehow.com are not the same, far as copyright is concerned (though they're copyrighted too). Basically, you only need to show that gelatin.com says their content is freely usable. Commercial sites almost never do, thus by default we must assume the images are copyrighted. I've removed them from the article, the image files will be deleted within 7 days.

What you can do is to re-create similar images yourself, the facts (that is, a chemical structure or the numbers from a pie chart) aren't copyrighted. Femto 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. The images at madehow.com are the same, just black-white versions of the images at gelatin.com. There is no such a notice stating that their content is freely usable at gelatin.com. But please take a look at gelatin.com, "Disclaimer" link. Does that work? Otherwise, I will create my own images. GBoran 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The disclaimer states only that they refuse to be held liable (in a legal sense) for any errors on the site. It has nothing to do with the copyright status of the images on the site. They still own those images, whether the infomation in those images is correct or incorrect. You'll need to make your own images as Femto suggested above, or find public domain (non copyrighted) images elsewhere.susato 07:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)