Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T19:05:27.359Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Milk-clotting and proteolytic activities of rennet, and of bovine pepsin and porcine pepsin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

P. F. Fox
P. F. Fox
Affiliation:
National Dairy Research Centre, The Agricultural Institute, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Irish Republic
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The milk-clotting and proteolytic activities of rennet, bovine pepsin and porcine pepsin were compared. The milk-clotting activity of porcine pepsin was extremely pH-dependent around pH 6·6 and coagulation did not occur above pH 6·68. The clotting activity of bovine pepsin was slightly more dependent on pH than that of rennet but no rapid drop-off in activity occurred as with porcine pepsin. Temperature influenced the clotting activity of rennet and bovine pepsin similarly but the behaviour of porcine pepsin was markedly different.

For equal milk-clotting activity, the proteolytic activities of rennet and bovine pepsin were approximately equal and substantially lower than that of porcine pepsin. Electrophoretic examination showed that the proteolysis products of rennet and bovine pepsin were similar and quite different from those produced by porcine pepsin.

The suitability of bovine pepsin as a rennet substitute is discussed.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , October 1969 , pp. 427 - 433
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Babel, F. J. (1967). Dairy Inds 32, 901.Google Scholar
Bang-Jensen, V., Foltmann, B. & Rombauts, W. (1964). C.r. Trav. Lab. Carlsberg 34, 326.Google Scholar
Chapman, H. R. & Burnett, J. (1968). Dairy Inds 33, 308.Google Scholar
Davis, J. G. (1965). Cheese, Vol. 1 Basic technology, p. 244. London: J. & A. Churchill Ltd.Google Scholar
Ernstrom, C. A. (1961). Milk Prod. J. 52, no. 5, p. 8.Google Scholar
Fish, J. C. (1957). Nature, Lond. 180, 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, P. F. (1968). Ir. J. agric. Res. 7, 251.Google Scholar
Fox, P. F. (1969). J. Dairy Sci. 52, 1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledford, R. A., O’sullivan, A. C. & Nath, K. R. (1966). J. Dairy Sci. 49, 1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindqvist, B. & StorgÅrds, T. (1962). 16th Int. Dairy Congr., Copenhagen B, 665.Google Scholar
Melachouris, N. P. & Tuckey, S. L. (1964). J. Dairy Sci. 47, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, H. H. & Hart, E. B. (1919). J. biol. Chem. 40, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, M. P., Kiddy, C. A., Johnston, J. O. & Weinberg, R. M. (1964). J. Dairy Sci. 47, 378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsugo, T. & Yamauchi, K. (1959). 15th Int. Dairy Congr., London 2, 636.Google Scholar