Talk:Lard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

How can you tell if lard is hydrogenated?

The pieces of lard that you can buy (the supposedly unrendered type) at the supermarket at the meat section, how can you tell if it is hydrogenated? Is there any way pieces of (unrendered) pork fat/lard can be hydrogenated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacktherrr (talk • contribs) 22:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious doubts about the implication that supermarket lard is hydrogenated. Hydrogenated fats must be listed in the table of ingredients, at least here in the UK, and there is no mention of it on the absolutely standard 250g pack of lard I have in the fridge at the moment. I will add a citation request to the article. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I bought lard at the supermarket it stated on the box that it was hydrogenated - Snow Cap lard from Morell. Hydrogenating lard greatly improves shelf life. --Weetoddid (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the practice varies regionally? UK supermarket lard is mostly 'own label' and has a typical shelf life of about 6 months with refrigeration. It would be helpful if an industry expert could comment. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every container of lard I've seen in supermarkets in the eastern United States contains partially hydrogenated fat of some kind. --kluebcke

Lard in Asian cuisines

I'm Japanese. I don't think Lard is often used for Japanese cuisine. In particular, Traditianal Japanese dish never uses Lard. Ramen Soup often contains Lard, because Ramen is based on Chinese cooking. Chinese cuisine is more appropriate than Japanese for a cuisine that uses Lard commonly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.43.93.28 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 29 January 2005

To the best of my knowledge, lard isn't important in Japanese cuisine, and I'm not even sure if pork has ever been important in the Japanese diet, in contrast to many other Asian societies. However, all of the more traditional recipes for sukiyaki that I've seen call for use of beef suet. Peter G Werner 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Bakery Uses

I feel this article misses the extent to which lard has fallen out of favour in the Western World. It went from being the #1 cooking fat, to the least popular fat in a number of years. Perhaps there should be some more details about how major bakeries stopped using lard in the 20th century. Many companies such as Nabisco used lard extensively in their cookies. Some products such as Oreos were widely known to include lard in the recipe. Changing consumer tastes, including a desire to appeal to a wider market of kosher, muslim, vegetarian, and health conscious consumers changed this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.25.75.66 (talk • contribs) 11 December 2005

I agree, maybe you should put this down in the article? Sjschen 21:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Schmaltz

What is the difference, if any, between lard and schmaltz? It seems that both terms refer to rendered animal fat. Should't these two articles be merged? – Kpalion (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Don't merge with schmaltz Lard is rendered from pigs and is undergoing a resurgence in cooking circles. Schmaltz can be rendered from any animal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.192.68 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 20 September 2005

OK, then perhaps we could merge lard, schmaltz, tallow and possibly some other articles into rendered animal fat which would say that all of these are basically the same thing, the only difference being the source animal: pig for lard, chicken or goose for schmaltz, cow or sheep for tallow? – Kpalion (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel they should be merged. Some of the major vegetable oils (for example Olive oil mentioned in this article) have their own articles, because they have enough history and unique applications to merit it. I think the same can be said for the various animal fats; they have developed relatively independently, have different histories, and are not necessarily interchangeable from a culinary perspective (at least, no more so than any fat may be). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.1.73 (talk • contribs) 9 October 2005

They should not be merged because of their different culutural background and history . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.168.85 (talk • contribs)

They should not be merged because lard can be unrendered. Tallow and schmaltz are always rendered.--Weetoddid (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prions?

"Lard is an animal fat produced from the fatty or otherwise unusable parts of pig carcasses." Does anyone know whether nerve tissue ends up in the "otherwise unusable parts" that get cooked down to make lard? If so, there would seem to be a possibility of

prions getting into the mix. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Lard is made only from animal fat, though perhaps unscrupulous producers might add other ingredients... Article on schmaltz explains better how lard is produced. Nikola 05:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I suspect that any commercial producer has a pretty fair chance of being less than scrupulous. Mwanner | Talk 00:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Brain fat is different then the fat found in other parts of the body. Unless the producer wishes to manufacture lard that does not look like lard, I really doubt they do it. Sjschen 20:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is pretty much a non issue with lard, it's made from fat and should have little to no nerve tissue. And so long as the pigs were not fed animal byproducts containing prions, are not exposed to organophospates or excess manganese and the other environmental toxins that cause the mutation and creation of prions then one shouldn't worry about prions in their lard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.173.252 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 June 2006
No pig has ever been recorded as having prion protein, in my knowledge. Chickens and Pigs seem to be immune to it. Research in
unsigned comment was added by 69.203.2.14 (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

Nutrition

Lard rendered from the fat of pigs exposed to sunlight is a rich source of vitamin D, but the vitamin D content is not listed under nutrition. If anyone can get this information it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.173.252 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 June 2006

I looked this up in several places, and everywhere listed 0% daily value of vitamin D... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.60.65 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 2 February 2007

Home-made lard?

If you keep the fat you pour off your bacon while it's cooking, is that considered lard? Whether it's technically "lard" or not, can you use it for cooking, as you would lard? What are the storage requirements if you keep your bacon fat for cooking -- how long can it stay in your fridge without making you sick? Does anyone have answers to any of these questions? Perhaps I should have asked them under "Bacon" but...here they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paprikapink (talk • contribs) 21:30, 29 July 2006

If lard is defined as rendered pig fat then bacon fat is lard. However, lard is generally considered the pure rendered fat from unprocessed pig fat. Bacon is cured and smoked; hence, the flavor is quite different and culinary results will not be the same if you substitute bacon fat for lard. That being said, bacon fat is a prized fat in the culinary world as it provides a delicious flavor when used. It is quite good for sauteing greens such as collard, kale or chard and eggs fried in bacon fat are also good. It most likely would not be good for baking, although I have seen a recipe for Swedish ginger cookies made with bacon fat. As long as the bacon fat is refrigerated it will keep for several months. Smell it; if it smells rancid, then through it out. The less residue from the bacon in the fat the longer it will keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.49.246 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 19 November 2006

no kidding. I guess sausage fat isn't lard either. maybe I should reverse my edits under history.....also, I just didn't know that all bacon is cured and smoked. I just thought it was fresh!--Kanliot 04:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beef Lard?

I'm sure I've heard of beef lard. Is that another name of tallow? --Gbleem 22:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, suet (beef fat) is rendered and processed to make tallow, just like pork fat is made into lard. Tallow also can refer to sheep "lard." 72.196.104.129 07:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive revision

I've been revising and adding to the article quite extensively based on the "Lard" entry in the Penguin Encyclopedia of Food and numerous newspaper articles on the topic. There really is quite a bit of information on the topic to put into the article. Peter G Werner 19:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Chemical composition

I have reverted the changes by User:Fxhomie, who changed the saturated/monounsaturated/polyunsaturated mass per 100 g of lard in order to get a sum of 100 g, thereby apparently arbitrarily rounding the values. The missing 5 g are mainly glycerol (fat is an ester of glycerol and fatty acids). Linoleic acid data was changed to 10 %, apparently again without good reason. The source of the detailed fatty acid data states that the lacking 2 % are other fatty acids.

One might further note that the nutrition box and the fatty acid details are not in total agreement - the monounsaturated fatty acids should be at least 47 g in the nutrition box, if the fatty acid details are correct. However, as the two sets of data are from different sources and the composition varies depending on breed and fodder, we should probably leave the data as it is until someone comes up with further references. Icek 21:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think these figures come from a National Research Council book and ultimately from an book called "Chemical Constitution of Natural Fat". I'm not sure how the figures were derived, but I'm pretty sure in actuality, the fatty acid content of lard can be quite variable, so I'm not sure I'd take the figures as gospel. I'm pretty sure wet-rendering vs. dry-rendering can have a substantial effect, since with wet rendering, you're heating the fat in the presence of water, and that can cause some of the unsaturated fat portion to become saturated, at least, if the temperature is high enough. Nonetheless, you were right to make the change – the figures should reflect exactly what was in the source material. Peter G Werner 21:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On wet vs. dry: It seems unlikely to me that water acts as a reducing agent at the temperatures used to render lard. Where would the oxygen end up (free O2 seems unlikely)? Maybe you mean hydroxylation (one carbon gets a H atom, the other an OH group)? Or maybe you meant the producting of trans fatty acids from the usual cis fatty acids? These latter two possibilities seem likelier to me. Icek (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T-shirts

Back in the day, wonderful

Viz magazine used to sell t-shirts with 50s-style images of people. One showed doting parents with their toddler son, and the slogan "Give him junior beer"; another had two men with the words "Don't be soft, have a fight"; another showed someone inhaling on a cigarette and "Mmmmmm, lovely fags" (British slang for cigarettes, not homosexuals). But my favourite of all was a smiling family accompanied by the slogan "They're happy because they eat LARD". Just thought I'd share with all you lard-oholics. 86.138.42.159 08:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh, I knew I came here for a reason. What, no mention of lardy cake on the page? Main ingredient (when you're eating it, anyhow) seems to be about 70% lard. Yum 86.138.42.159 08:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"See also" now mentions it. --Macrakis 13:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds gross. 70% lard? Dragonrider27 18:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "They're happy because they eat lard" picture was produced by the "Lard Information Council" and has found its way around the Web. However that body is fictitious. It, and the "retro style" picture was concocted as a prank by a member of the Active Low Carber forum, who posted regularly in the Paleolithic Diet area of the forum. Caused some amusement at the time, but has clearly taken on a life of its own. --MichaelGG (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lard versus butter

Is this true (Lard contains less..etc, under History and Cultural Use)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Band1t (talk • contribs) 20:53, 15 April 2007

Yes, that's very much the case. I haven't added a comparable infobox on the Butter article yet, but if you saw the breakdown of butterfat vs. lard, lard contains about half the saturated fat and and one-third the cholesterol that butter does. Butterfat is approximately 2/3 saturated fat by weight, whereas lard is about 1/3; whole butter has about 2.4 mg/g cholesterol, while lard has 0.8 mg/g. Even when you adjust for the water, protein, and solids in butter, the overall percentage of saturated fat and cholesterol is still considerably higher than lard. This is why unhydrogenated lard is considerably softer at room temperature than is butter.
BTW, when posting to a "Talk" page, you should put new posts on the bottom of the page, not the top. And, please sign your posts. Peter G Werner 17:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lard http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fats-and-oils/483/2 Butter http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/133/2 Govtrust (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't say if it's hydrogenated or not. I expect it would change the figures. The standard lard bought in US supermarkets is hydrogenated. Weetoddid (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This site uses the USDA database: Lard vs Butter. Lard has less saturated fat and more mono and polyunsaturated fats for the same mass. Lard has more total fat and calories. This matches the table that someone added. Armor brand hydrogenated lard (the only brand that I have ever seen), basically matches the USDA numbers. It has <0.5g of trans fat per TBS and is listed as "0". I am changing the beginning about lard being dropped in cooking because of concerns over saturated fat. It was dropped, because vegetable shortening became available, was cheaper and had less saturated fat. Unfortunately, now we know it has trans fats. Sleepeeg3 (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican and Tex-Mex Cuisine

One cultural cuisine section that is missing is the widespread use of lard within Mexican, especially Southern Texas cooking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.31.184 (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boiling Point

The boiling poibt of lard is 527 degrees farenhiet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lard527 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pork fat

The article lead currently states lard is pork fat, rendered or not. That seems to be a confusion of the English "lard" (rendered pork fat) with the French lard (fatback). Unless someone comes up with a reliable source that establishes "lard" in English usually includes any and all pork fat, this article should be revised to narrow its scope to the rendered fat. --Una Smith (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked several dictionaries (http://www.onelook.com/?w=lard&ls=a) and many specify rendered pork fat only. The few they don't tend to be vague, but not contradictory (ie they don't specify unrendered pork fat as a possibility). 76.204.79.221 (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My copy of the OED mentions both.Weetoddid (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

contradictory statements re saturated fat content

In the section "History and cultural use" the article states "lard has less saturated fat... than an equal amount of butter", but in the section "Culinary use" it says "Lard is one of the few edible oils with a relatively high smoke point, attributable to its high saturated fatty acids content." This seems contradictory: which is it, a high or low content of saturated fats? Odedee (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A product may have less saturated fat than butter and still be high in saturated fat. So not contradictory. I would not call it an oil as it is solid at room temp. Weetoddid (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a correction!!

At the bottom of the article under alternatives, the article says: "Cooking fat obtained from cattle or sheep is known as suet or tallow" -- this should read "Cooking fat obtained from cattle or sheep is known as tallow or suet" -- as suet is mutton (sheep) and tallow is from cattle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EffingTarkas (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both suet and and tallow can come from cattle or sheep. Tallow is rendered and could be a sub for rendered lard. Suet is unrendered and could be a sub for unrendered lard. Weetoddid (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Health Concerns in Overview

I think it's stupid, the modern science has all but exonerated saturated fat as a health concern for humans, it's only governments and out of touch educational institutions that keep pushing the saturated fat myth. millions and millions of pounds of lard are sold annually, I really don't think saying it "was" used is accurate, and reflects the common bias against lard. No I don't have any stake in the lard industry I just want to see the stupid and harmful myth that saturated fat is bad die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.59.159 (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 24 August 2012

in the Germany section, there is an image of "schmalz", but the caption says "schmaltz" (why is my browser underlining "schmalz" and not "schmaltz"?...) if talking about the *german*-related lard, it doesn't contain a t.

this is so much more work than hitting edit and removing the t... 66.92.61.35 (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done The caption does need to be in English (unless italics are used) but because both spellings are valid and the spelling without the 't' is used elsewhere in the article I'm making the change. Sorry you had to jump through
the hoops; apparently the article has been subject to a lot of vandalism from unregistered editors. Rivertorch (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

"grounded restaurant"?

Schmalzbrot ("bread with Schmalz") can be found on many menus in Germany, especially in grounded restaurants or brewery pubs

says this article. What is a "grounded restaurant"? The term appears nowhere else in Wikipedia! -- Picapica (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a transliteration error - any German users capable of checking this? 93.145.221.210 (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly a bad oversetting of "Bodenständig", 'down-to-earth'

Replace "especially in grounded restaurants or brewery pubs" with "especially in down-to-earth restaurants or brewery pubs" 2001:16B8:5C82:D000:B9D0:E217:E31A:F1C2 (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While on the subject of bad German: "Fettbemme" is not standard German but dialect, as noted on the German-language page.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replace "Fettbemme" with "Schmalzbrot" 2001:16B8:5C82:D000:B9D0:E217:E31A:F1C2 (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

"" Rendered lard produces an unpleasant smell when mixed with oxygen.[8]""

How is this mixing done? Liquid oxygen or gaseous oxygen? What about the 19 % oxygen in air? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.209.190 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The referenced article appears to report complaints about a restaurant's production volume more than specifically the order itself. (Think anise) 66.58.137.28 (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2015

Negative publicity was generated by the Upton Sinclar novel The Jungle which, ...

should be

Negative publicity was generated by the Upton Sinclair novel The Jungle which, ... Jake.balfour (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks! --NeilN talk to me 21:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lard Is Not Schmalz, and Beware Of Children Around Your Beer

This article is semi-protected, so I can't edit myself. Would somebody else make the edit and remove this "talk section" when it has been done?

Item One: Schmalz. Is a fat that adheres to the Jewish kashrut - in a nutshell, schmalz is neither dairy nor pork. Lard is pork. Thus it follows that you can't call lard "dripping" "schmaltz". The section that needs to be changed reads "as opposed to the more noticeably pork flavored dry rendered lard, which is also referred to as dripping or schmalz. Dripping (or schmalz) sandwiches are still popular in several European countries"

Item Two: Beware children around your beer - or wives! "Lard was oftentimes spread thinly on the inside of beer pails to keep the foam down, which would arise from wives and/or children agitating the beer inside of the pail." Seriously?

Personification of plenty (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)personification_of_plenty[reply]

You have a point. As the
schmalz article says, although 'Schmalz' in German includes pork lard, English generally follows the Yiddish meaning. I've edited the article; take a look. --Macrakis (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@Personification of plenty: We generally don't delete talk page posts as they're a record of why some edits were done. I've looked at the beer source and it's too specific to support the general claim made in the article. --NeilN talk to me 23:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 16:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2016

There is no place for religion in the summation of a food product.

"...is a semi-soft white fat with a high saturated fatty acid content and no transfats, and refined lard is usually sold as paper-wrapped blocks. Being a product obtained from a pig, it is not an acceptable food ingredient in some cultures."

Absurd mention of the fact that some cultures dont approve of some kinds of animal products, needs deleting like so:

"...is a semi-soft white fat with a high saturated fatty acid content and no transfats, and refined lard is usually sold as paper-wrapped blocks."

Lets hope im not the only person sensible enough to feel a nagging outrage on seeing this. I was looking up lard was all, and here i am editing the thing because it went religious on me. What exactly are you editors semi-protecting here? D.vedeneev (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have removed the reference as I agree that religious or custom references aren't necessary. If any editor objects, consensus will need to be made here at the talk page. Semi-protection on Wikipedia is used to protect articles that are subject to vandalism. --
talk 06:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported subjective remarks

Statements like '"Industrially-produced lard, including much of the lard sold in supermarkets, is rendered from a mixture of high and low quality fat from throughout the pig"' make subjective judgement about what is high-quality or low-quality. In the case of lard, the difference in lard types is better described by the presence or absence of pork-like flavor, the location of the fat on the animal, or the processing methodology. What is high or low quality varies from person to person.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2023

Please remove the link to the 'schmaltz' Wikipedia page when referring to 'Griebenschmalz'. This is an erroneous link as they are entirely separate things. 'Griebenschmalz' is not 'gribenes' despite sounding similar. They are false friends. 155.137.25.216 (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Pinchme123 (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lard&oldid=1218259765"