Talk:Rendering (animal products)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

(Untitled)[edit]

This article heralds the economic benefits of rendering, in broad strokes proclaims it king. Far from the 'necessary evil' perspective most encyclopedias adopt. Removal of bias and the addition of other viewpoints (health, ethical, economical) requested. --70.88.195.46 14:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is clearly about the Industrial Rendering in the USA. Anyone care to add a more global view? Markb 12:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article is marked Advertisement; can't justify that label[edit]

I don't think the article is at all promoting an agenda. I think the language that was questionable is in the description of industrial rendering as "useful", but that statement is actually a fact. It is completely true that marketable commercial/industrial products were (and still are) created by industrial rendering. That is not an opinion. I find nothing else in this article that promotes any agenda - it is actually rather well written and comprehensive. Speedy deletion would be a shame.

If there is a better way to mark or edit the parts that may seem non-objective, please use it. The current labeling is potentially destructive and extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianvan (talk • contribs) 05:22, 13 November 2006

Meat and bone meal.[edit]

"The cracklings are further ground to make meat and bone meal." Is this one product or two? --Gbleem 14:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One product. ike9898 13:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Kitchen rendering and Rendering (food processing)[edit]

Same processes (eg, dry rendering and wet rendering), but one article discusses on a kitchen scale, the other on an industrial scale. I think the two should be merged. Peter G Werner 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal has also been added to merge Greaves (food) into this article. I support this move, as greaves are a rendering byproduct, and there does not seem to be enough material on greaves (or even potentially enough material) to justify a stand-alone article on the topic. Peter G Werner 21:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made this proposal, and I will simply go ahead and redirect Greaves (food) to here. The entire text of the article was "In food discussions, greaves is the umeltable residue left after animal fat has been rendered"; if someone thinks that should be added to this article, feel free to add it. --Xyzzyplugh 21:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge of the two rendering articles would be fine as long as they each have their own sections. I seem to remember someone arguing they needed to be split up a few years back, resulting in the current arrangement. The topic of kitchen rendering could be expanded significantly, but there is still a limited amount to say about it. To merging or not would both be OK in this case. ike9898 16:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everything's merged. The section could actually use some expansion at some point. Peter G Werner 00:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen concerns and industrial/market concerns are not the same[edit]

I really don't see why kithcen rendering has been folded into industrial processes.

But I don't know enough to make the point/post myself. Which is why I came to wikipedia trying to find out about the how and the history of small-scale rendering techniques.

Any help out there?

Rmiotke (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)rmiotke[reply]

They are really the same thing, just on very different scales. Kitchen rendering could certainly have its own article, but as it stands we don't have much information specific to kitchen rendering, really not enough to make a decent article. Hopefully, in your research you can turn up some information you can add to the article. Please provide references for information you add - it will really help this article become more complete. ike9898 (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that small scale rendering should have either its own page or own section. I found this site looking for information on how to render on a small scale and how to render in a low-tech (survival situation). Rendered fat is a primary ingredient in a meat preservation technique called Pemmican, which can supposedly remain unspoiled indefinitely; and thus small scale rendering would be helpful topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.84.98 (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article appears to be copied from a high-school-level research essay[edit]

The writing style of this article, especially in the latter sections, is clearly amateur. I am adding an inappropriate tone template so this can get rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.57.107 (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages and disadvantages seems neutral[edit]

I don't see the justification for putting a neutrality banner in the advantages and disadvantages section (or the following section). If nobody raises an objection this banner should be removed. --204.8.148.32 (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the wording seems to be from the point of view of a rending industry representative. I would think that a much shorter statement of the fact that rendering is a form of recycling would be much more NPOV than the somewhat repetitive assertion of making the modern meat-packing industry possible. Without disputing the assertion that rendering enhances the profitability and environmental acceptability of the meat industry, asserting that the existence of large packing plants is a "good thing" to society requires a logical basis that goes outside the scope of the article.

Similarly, the whole Economic Impacts section has a very boosterish tone to it. I'm not clear on why this section is helpful in what's primary an article about the process. Perhaps I am (and the community is) unclear on whether this is an article about the rendering industry or about the technology (culinary and commercial) of rendering.

Perhaps much of the dispute could be resolved by splitting the article on those lines. Wcoole (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whaling[edit]

No reference at all to the whaling industry? Whale oil used to be the most important lighting oil of the western hemisphere. Rendering was done on board the whaling ships. Read Moby Dick for reference. I'm adding a Whale oil link to the "See also" section. --BjKa (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does Moby Dick qualify as WP:RELIABLE? 184.97.149.5 (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BSE section is biased and outdated, cites an inadequate "reference"[edit]

The BSE section needs to be edited or removed. The referenced book by Lyman was written over 15 years ago, and the author was promoting a vegetarian diet. The information in this section is outdated, incomplete and misleading. Fortunately, regulations for meat processing, rendering, and animal food ingredients have changed dramatically since 2001. (Sorry, I don't know how to "edit" an article myself.) Factoree (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]