Talk:Eggs as food

Edit request by mpioca, 04 august 2012

Please, change the nutritional value of a large egg yolk from 60 calories to 60 kilocalories and 15 calories to 15 kilocalories for the egg white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpioca (talk • contribs) 11:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

is there any vitamin B12, D and creatine in eggs?

If it is, someone could add the info. I can't find anything. AquilonianRanger (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

-Vitamin D profiles will closely mimic the Omega 3 profile of the egg. (There are eggs, and then there are eggs...) Chickens were meant to eat grass and grass seeds, and scratch around in the dirt; not be force-fed corn in a cave. The first produce eggs high in Omega 3, and vitamin D; the second do not.Bbyrd009 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge?

Whoever suggested the merge might consider suggesting reasons for the merge. In any event, this article is long and already frequently disputed. As well, there is a huge use of eggs for vaccine production, breeding, art, etc that would not merge well with this. I am opposed to merging egg with this article. Bob98133 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fertilized or unfertilized?

Chicken Eggs are fertilized eggs after the hen has layed an egg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.75.1.2 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What does that even MEAN?!? Chicken eggs are fertilized when a momma hen and a daddy rooster love each other very much. The eggs you get from chickens who are segregated from roosters are almost universally unfertilized. Can we delete this heading, which seems to be either a troll or the work of some willfully ignorant person? 67.164.216.166 (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Development

I made this picture of Egg Development. Maybe someone with Adminrights wants to include it?

Development of chicken Egg

Feel free to work on the description of this image. I'm no biologist. I was just eyewitness of a chicken butchering ;-)--93.221.214.234 (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Egg abnormalities

An "egg within an egg" occurs approximately once in every three million eggs. The inner egg has the same outer shell as the external egg effectively resulting in two complete eggs. Link to story about this phenomenon can be found here: http://www.3news.co.nz/An-egg-inside-another-egg-Eggcellent/tabid/372/articleID/143023/Default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaunNZ (talk • contribs) 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC) sdsd

Peelability of an egg

there is the comment: "It is untrue that the reason boiled eggs that are difficult to peel is because they are too fresh. Peelability depends on the hen" and the page states that this requires citation. though I cant provide citation; what I can say (and others may want to try this with more accurate tests) that peelability seems to depend (for me) on how hard the egg is boiled (and then how quickly cooled) and if it is totally hard boiled or if the yolk is still (partially) soft. Any softness left in the yolk, and the more softness that there is, (i.e. an egg that is not totally hard boiled), the harder the egg will be to peel. The Yolk sould have turned bright yellow and dry (from cooking), and then the egg immediately cooled in cold water (so that the egg shrinks away from the shell). the secondary effect on the peelability seems to be Where you decide to crack the egg, 2 important places are the 2 ends; by doing this, you allow air into the vacume that was created and then you can grip the skin more easily when peeling the shell. This maximises the peelability of the egg. I apologise if I am wrong, or if much of what I have written is from naive science. For this reason, I have not changed the web page. [[User:Cs1kh]] (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally brown hens lay brown eggs and white, white eggs. White eggs are much easier to peel than brown. brown eggs can be made easier to peel by keeping them until they are a few weeks old. As they age the pH of the white increases due to loss of carbon dioxide dissolved in the white and this chemical change loosens the shell from the shell membrane when cooked. A good hard cook and cooling really well prior to peeling will also help. Dwimmer (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Having just recently begun purchasing beyond organic (read: really fresh) eggs, I only just recently started having this 'egg-peeling' problem; rather than wait a couple weeks..?, a friend saved me by suggesting to put the fresh eggs (to boil) in boiling water, rather than in with the cold water, to be heated~works great!Bbyrd009 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for an edit

In #Cholesterol and fat, it says "More than half the calories found in eggs come from the fat in the yolk; a 100-gram chicken egg contains approximately 10 grams of fat."

I think it should be changed to a 50-gram egg and 5 grams of fat. This would be inline with #Nutritional Value which states "A large egg yolk contains approximately 60 Calories (250 kilojoules); the egg white contains about 15 Calories (60 kilojoules)."

75 calories would be the calories for a 50-gram egg according to the nutritional chart and I believe that 100 grams is a very abnormal size for a chicken egg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.141.241 (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"only 27% of the fat in egg is saturated fat (palmitic, stearic and myristic acids[24]) that contains LDL cholesterol" this is meaningless, LDL is not a kind of cholesterol but a lipoprotein that carries cholesterol in the blood. there is no such thing as "ldl cholesterol" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.54.224 (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Or 60!

I think you'll find "standard" or normal size for supermarket chicken eggs is 59 grams. (I think they subtract 1g to be safely over the line on average.) Compuhletely hearsay, and too tired to cite a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.42.43 (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

semi protected or not?

When i made an edit, i saw the "This page has been semi protected" pink box on the edit page, however the silver lock icon is NOT on the main page, and i cannot find the template in the text, nor an explanation of why this article was semi protected. Can anyone explain? SeanBrockest (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added the padlock icon. It looks like it was semiprotected here in September 2008 in response to steady IP vandalism. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Flavour or Flavor

I'm just curious as to why, if Wikipedia is an American based company (St. Petersburg, Florida), many articles use British spelling on the words. Take this article for example, where it says "flavour" instead of "flavor". Shouldn't there be some sort of consistency here? BucsWeb (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the relevant discussion. Blue Rasberry 02:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I posted the same query about a week ago. It may be that I notice "Britishisms" more and hence they seem ubiquitous, though I suppose they are not.The cited style manual seems to say that national usage is up to the author, providing certain standards are met, e.g., using the spelling and grammar of the country closely associated with the topic. However, it is improper in the U.S. not to separate a month and a year with a comma; the manual states the opposite, which seems a clear case of pro-United Kingdom prejudice.I imagine I could garner other examples if I dug around enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.79.239 (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this discussion is here at all, serves to illustrate that Egg (food) started out life with British English spelling. At some point it has been incorrectly altered to American English spelling. Eggs are not an American invention - we've been eating them all around the world for many centuries before there was a USA. Wikipedia policy on internationally-relevant articles is quite clear. The switch to American spelling shouldn't have happened. I recently added new text to this article and C45207 rapidly converted my British English into American English (and made other alterations which I would consider matters of style, rather than differences of types of English). However, I have no intention of being drawn into an edit war. If certain people are desperate to have American spelling then so be it. I hope our American cousins are happy with "egg" as a spelling at least... Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 11:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The most common Britishism in Wikipedia is the gratuitous remark such as the typical specimen above, "Eggs are not an American invention" when there isn't even a hint at such a ridiculous claim. Americans are far more understanding about about spelling differences than the British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.7.248 (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the thread properly you'd have seen that my comments were about WP policy, not differences of spelling. The policy is clear - the international version of the language, in an article that is not country-specific, should be the original language version. In the case of this article, that was British English, which was then changed to American English contrary to policy. The most typical Americanism in Wikipedia, alas, is the American forgetfulness that a world exists outside North America. IF eggs HAD been invited in America, then there would not have been a policy violation; as they were NOT, such a violation DID occur. You may not like my use of Reductio ad absurdum, but it is a sound principle, used here to make a point about policy. The comments were about a policy violation, not spelling, or who invented eggs, or whether they came before or after chickens....Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 19:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Computer egg image

Nice image, but I think that it needs some explanation or reference in the Cultural significance section lest those unfamiliar with the concept of eggs representing the birth of something-or-other think that this egg gave birth to the first computer. Silly, I know, but perhaps unclear without at least a one-line explanation. Bob98133 (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the computer egg image seems inappropriate on this page. Perhaps it should be on the page for eggs (not food) as this would be where one could include a statement on conception and birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.200.129 (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Choline content

The article claims that an egg yolk contains about half the recommended daily intake, but the choline article says it only about a quarter of it (113mg vs RDA of 425mg for adult women and 550mg for adult men).75.106.87.124 (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Consumer Storage

Product	Refrigerator	Freezer
Raw eggs in shell	3 to 5 weeks	Do not freeze. Instead, beat yolks and whites together; then freeze.
Raw egg whites	2 to 4 days	12 months
Raw egg yolks	2 to 4 days	Yolks do not freeze well.
Raw egg accidentally frozen in shell	Use immediately after thawing.	Keep frozen; then refrigerate to thaw.
Hard-cooked eggs	1 week	Do not freeze.

http://www.foodsafety.gov/keep/charts/eggstorage.html
Logisticsprofessional (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Move protection

I cannot move this page. I assume that is due to semi protection. I intend to move it to Eggs (human consumption) as there is no apparent scope to expand this article beyond that. i.e. if somebody wants to write an article on non-human egg consumption, this in depth and particular article would not be the place to do so. ~ R.T.G 23:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.212.128.170, 30 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Problem with HDL/LDL usage as a debate in Heath Issues: Cholesterol and fat: Second Paragraph

There is debate over whether egg yolk presents a health risk. Some research suggests dietary cholesterol increases the ratio of total to HDL cholesterol and, therefore, adversely affects the body's cholesterol profile;[27] whereas other studies show that moderate consumption of eggs, up to one a day, does not appear to increase heart disease risk in healthy individuals.[28]

Sources [27] and [28] are a moot argument towards one another.

98.212.128.170 (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain further? I don't understand what you mean by "moot" (which normally means "that point is no longer relevant because circumstances have changed). The sentence seems fine to me, as it seems to show two different scientific studies that contradict one another. WP:NPOV says that where sources disagree, we should (assuming they have equal merit), present both neutrally. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Qwyrxian and therefor decline this request. My76Strat 06:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In a similar vein, the sub-section 'Type-2 Diabetes' under 'Health Issues' seems to use somewhat less neutral phrasing. Starting with a condemning statement does not reflect the murky research that rolls everyone who eats one or more eggs a day into the same category, and relies on self-reporting. Something like "Connections between Type-2 Diabetes and egg consumption is the subject of ongoing research" seems to get it off on the right foot. Also, the link to the journal supporting the initial statement is broken. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2628696/ seems to be the right one. 67.164.216.166 (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I've changed the sentence to a neutral one, given that we have 2 conflicting studies. In the future, it will help if you add new comments like this to the bottom of the talk page in a new section; adding them to a much older one like this sometimes causes them to get lost. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Saltttt, 23 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} There exist written guidelines in Australia for "free range" although it is absent in some countries like U.S.Please refer to: http://www.poultryhub.org/index.php/Requirements_for_the_Egg_Industry_in_the_2001_Welfare_Code#Free_range_systems_.28non_cage_systems.29

Saltttt (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)  Done I added Australia to the relevant sentence (Chicken egg grading) along with the citation. Is that about what you were thinking? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Should mention that raw egg white depletes biotin

98.207.235.40 (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pirulin, 6 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Hello, in section 11.1 Cholesterol and Fat could "large" be removed from "large 50-gram chicken egg" since (in Europe at least) a chicken egg under 53 grams is classified as small, a large one is 63-73 grams (and as far as I'm aware, 50 gram is an American medium, not large)

Pirulin (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done "large 50-gram" doesn't even make sense. Grams are one size, as far as I know. Thanks.—C45207 | Talk 00:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The egg is large, not the grams. The hypen made this grammatically correct. I have reworked it with parenthesis to clarify further. It is important to leave "large" in the text because (at least in the US) that's how they're labeled on packages. --Kvng (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that chicken egg sizes is correct, there is no country where a large egg is 50g. 50g usually puts an egg in the small or medium category.—C45207 | Talk 05:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I quickly checked some references on this before editing and perhaps chicken egg sizes needs some work. What I found is that apparently the shell of an egg is 12% of its weight. The shell of a US large (57 gram) egg is 7 grams so the contents of the egg is 50 grams. --Kvng (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.29.46.243, 13 April 2011

your page Egg (food) contains an error. You state: "Anatomy and characteristics

The shape of an egg is an ovate spheroid with one end larger than the other end. The egg has cylindrical symmetry along the long axis."

Look up "ovate" and "prolate".

"A prolate spheroid is a spheroid in which the polar axis is greater than the equatorial diameter."

The shape of an egg is a prolate spheroid, not ovate.

72.29.46.243 (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. "Ovate" means shaped like an egg; it didn't say "oblate", the opposite type of spheroid from "prolate". I changed it anyway though, since it should be self-evident an egg is egg-shaped. — Bility (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

edit request

Hi! Someone may wish to compare this,
"There is debate over whether egg yolk presents a health risk. Some research suggests dietary cholesterol increases the ratio of total to HDL cholesterol and, therefore, adversely affects the body's cholesterol profile;[27] whereas other studies show that moderate consumption of eggs, up to one a day, does not appear to increase heart disease risk in healthy individuals.[28]",
to anecdotal stories of Frenchmen in great health eating 6 eggs a day, at age 75; which I can verify. Increase your resveratrol (or something). The point is that poor cholesterol/other metabolism(s) are being blamed on an egg here. ty Bbyrd009 (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 83.31.154.130, 21 May 2011

Please add the traditional African usage of the egg. The egg is an important item used to appease the gods in the old African tradition. It is thrown at the shrine of deities and it signifies peace.

Perfectmoses (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: Can you provide a more exact description of this ritual and some form of supporting reference/citation. I have looked, but cannot find any sources for this tradition. Neither can I find any sources for the use of the egg in African tradition as a symbol of peace. The only references extant are to the egg as a symbol of creation in the 'Cosmic Egg' myth of certain African tribes, but that is something quite different. Please supply sources, and we can look at this again. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 17:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Vitamin A content - beta-Carotene... retinol

I didn't want to make an edit without discussing it first. I think it's important to specify the form of Vitamin A that is in eggs (edible eggs that is). β-carotene being the inactive form and retinol being the precursor form. If there is any objections, I would like to hear it. Aquamelli (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems fine as long as you have a reliable source that verifies that (or, if it's already in one of the sources given). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done I added a reference from a 2005 release from the USDA in regards to Vitamin A RAE content of selected foods. Aquamelli (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Color of eggshell

I've just reverted the edits by Trarms (talk · contribs). The magazine quoted (New Scientist) is entirely reputable and well-known, and it was properly quoted and cited for reference. There is no good reason here to remove properly-cited facts from the article without any sort of discussion on the talk page, and subsequent consensus. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 00:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will explain further. I'm mainly concerned about the section on blue eggs. While the New Scientist source may be fine, it is from 1976, but the article gives the impression that it is a report of modern-day preferences. While this is probably the case, the citation does not support the claim. I would suggest editing to "a 1976 article suggests that there was little to no demand for blue eggs." Two further problems: 1) the link to "Happy Hens," the source for info about blue eggs, goes to a commercial site, and the page linked to does not actually specify which hens lay blue eggs (and also has no information about the strength of blue eggshells, but this could be fixed with a "citation needed"); 2) in the final paragraph of the color section, there is a claim about speckled eggs being preferred by some housewives, but I see no source supporting the claim that housewives prefer speckled eggs. In fact, the claim seems unnecessary to the paragraph and oddly placed, since we see earlier in the article that some have preferred brown eggs, yet this is not brought up in the final paragraph when brown eggs are mentioned. The paragraph would seem to make more sense without this odd, unsupported addition. Suggestions? Trarms (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Trarms

I suppose "commercial website" is a sightly subjective term. We happily quote, for example, on-line newspaper sites, even though they are all trying to sell us a subscription, as well as providing on-line news. Within any 'fancy' (whatever the animal/bird) there will be lots of hobby-driven sites that combine useful information with sale of the specialist items used within the fancy. Maybe the Happy Hens citation would be better placed within the brackets - it was never intended to support the claim about strength of shell, but rather it was there to satisfy an editor who thought that blue hens eggs were a joke, and didn't actually exist. Blue hens eggs are actually quite commonly available from specialists, but due to the very fact being discussed here (ie that housewives won't buy blue eggs) many people outside the 'chicken world' don't realise they exist. The Happy Hens reference was merely meant as a source to demonstrate that blue hens eggs are a reality, albeit a commercial failure, due to human preferences. However, other references are available instead of the Happy Hens one. Regarding the date of the NS article, I suspect the reason there has been little or no scientific research since 1976 is that the matter is self-evident! It is fairly obvious that there is no demand for blue eggs today, despite their stronger shells, even if the matter hasn't been scientifically proved since 1976; however, I'd have no objection to adding the date into the article, as you suggest. In fact, when I first referenced that article (in the previous paragraph) I began the sentence "In February 1976...". Finally, regarding the clause you find odd in the final sentence of the section, I don't have strong feelings on that one, though I certainly don't find it odd. The article has hitherto been discussing mostly white and tinted (brown) eggs. There is also a demand for red (speckled) eggs (as demonstrated by the fact that egg manufacturers produce them), and that clause seems to me simply to be making that point at the first mention of red (speckled) eggs. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 10:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've done some editing based on your concerns above. I've removed the Happy Hens reference altogether, and replaced it with one which I hope isn't commercial. I've also relocated that reference inside the brackets to make it even clearer that it is referencing blue eggs, not eggshell strengths. I've added a date reference to the mention of the French research on blue eggshell strength. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 10:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I still think the reference in the last paragraph to housewives is odd. Sure, there is a demand for red (speckled) eggs, but why the reference to housewives rather than consumers in general? That is, the research cited earlier in the section is explicitly about housewives, as one would expect given the time period in which the research was conducted. But I don't think we are justified in inferring from the fact that speckled eggs are commercially available--and therefore in demand--that it is housewives who are demanding them. We are at best justified in inferring that is consumers who are demanding them, and the article should reflect that. Trarms (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Trarms

Agreed - and changed! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 04:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There remain numerous examples of "housewives" in this section. If "housewife" is used in a quote, it is acceptable, but in prose it does not adequately represent NPOV. Perhaps "egg-buyers" or the more general "consumers" would be better. 152.3.68.6 (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like all three of the sources specifically talk about "housewives". We can't claim that it's true of "egg-buyers" in general, since the studies/articles only talked specifically about housewives. Of course, that has a lot to do with the age of the first two sources and the country of the third, but we can't interpret those studies beyond what they actually say. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Point 1 - In relation to this article and these quotes, I totally agree with the foregoing by Qwyrxian, which makes the point clearly. Our job is to work with the material before us, not to extrapolate from it, which would be WP:OR. Point 2 - There may be a cultural issue going on here, but it seems to me that some of these comments are motivated by a dislike of the word "housewife"; such a personal dislike is very much a WP:POV. In my country and my socio-economic grouping housewives are a highly respected and essential part of society, and they would be very upset by a POV which attempted to disband them. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 11:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the point in a living conditions section?

I was going to just remove it but I saw a comment asking for it to be discussed, so I assume it's of some interest to other editors. What have living conditions of the egg layers got to do with this article? I understand there ought to be some link to battery hens somewhere as disparate & unpredictable links are part of the beauty of wikipedia... or as one could put it hypertextual makes for hypersexual... but what's the point in having an entire section? Just another place for people with varying views on animal rights/welfare to have a fight and it's inevitably polemical, most likely for the pro-animal rights side but in another incarnation in the future possibly for the animals are resources only side. In either case, I see no reason for it to be here. Given the comment I imagine some page watchers will pop in soon and put me right Egg Centric 20:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a part of the subject. Why on earth should we not make the information available in the apropriate place? Because you find it distasteful? You ought to go and eat something else then and stop worrying about it, am I right? You wouldn't be complaining if the sources said, "Laying chickens are fed a strict diet of sugar plums and fairies. After their nighttime story, they sleep for ten hours until the farmer comes and wakes them up with tea and toast and a tickle..." No my friend, you'd be insisting that it went into the article, but the sources did not say this today. Maybe tomorrow you and I will remove this awful section because it is simply not true, but while it still is true, what else can we do? The point is: To outline the living conditions from which eggs are farmed by humans. If there were a particular type of truck used to convey eggs, it would warrant at least a mention, and its own section if sufficient relevant data were available. The live chicken is the truck. ~ R.T.G 19:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I also agree - it's part of the subject. An article about eggs really ought to discuss all aspects of egg production, and as eggs are ultimately produced by chickens, the living conditions of chickens are part of the subject. Furthermore, whatever one's view, there are plenty of people (myself included) who believe that eggs from free-range chickens and eggs from battery chickens actually taste different, so again "living conditions of chickens" is highly relevant to the subject of "eggs". The section must stay. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 20:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the topic is acceptable for this article, as it directly relates to the production of eggs as food. The only real question for me is whether or not it's too extensive; since most of this is covered at Poultry farming, and it's generally better to use summary style rather than duplicate the info, I wonder if we might want to shorten this section. But it's not too long as it is now, so it doesn't bother me much. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Where on earth did I say I find the section distatestful? I couldn't care less about chickens, they're little different to insects. I think it's irrelevant, that's all. Egg Centric 17:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Menstrual Waste

I think it's important to mention that commonly used eggs (i.e. Hen eggs) are unfertilized, and are therefore the egg's menstrual waste. I know this may be off-putting, but it solves the problem of people who say that you kill a chick when you eat an egg. Also, it's just an interesting piece of information. I'm surprised that no one had added this already; please do so soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.103.209 (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but no--I sincerely doubt that reliable source uses that terminology, and anyone who says that eating an egg kills a chicken is 1) clearly lacking some basic knowledge and 2) will already be informed of that error by the rest of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

edit request

Find it odd that under cooking methods, "refrigerated" is listed along with scrambled, boiled, fried, poached, etc. I suggest it be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.102.153.124 (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done I agree; I've rephrased the whole sentence and removed "refrigerated". Qwyrxian (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Farming Issues:Living Conditions of Birds

Very informative, but I think it needs an update. I'm pretty sure the State of California voters passed in 2008 proposition 2, which prohibits California farmers from raising hens in cages. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_2_%282008%29.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.46.92 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Antibiotic resistance

I deleted the section a month ago on the grounds that it was about consuming chickens that had been hatched from eggs treated with antibiotics, not about eating the eggs themselves. The citation provided [1] is also clear that the issue is with consuming chicken, not with consuming eggs. The section was restored by GliderMaven with edit summary "article is about eggs for consumption and should cover all aspects of that, including production, not simply nutrition ". Since the section is NOT about consuming eggs at all, but rather is about consuming chickens, the section belongs on the Chicken article, not here. That is, unless a citation can be found that shows that eggs intended for consumption (rather than for hatching) are treated with antibiotics and cause health issues... —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your point, and have re-removed the section. That article is clearly about consuming the food product "chicken". Those eggs that are being injected w/antibiotics, by definition are not "Egg (food)", because those injected are not eaten as eggs. Or, another way of putting is that the food "egg" is not being injected with these antibiotics (at least as far as that citation says). Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've moved it to Chicken (food). Whoever removed the section should have put it in the appropriate article. - M0rphzone (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Egg Protien Value is incorrect

It shows 12.6 grams of protein. The correct value is 6 grams of protein. Other than Wikipedia, I have found no source on the web that shows other than 6 grams. This is a critical error since body builders and other exercising individuals use the protein value to design their diets. I was alerted to this error at the gym, and confirmed it by doing research on the internet. A little over half of the protein is in the yoke, and the remainder in the white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IT Architect (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That value is per 100g of eggs, not per individual egg. It matches with the citation listed in the infobox. Ashanda (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nutritional value - what about the shell?

The National Institutes of Health states, "Clinical and experimental studies showed that eggshell powder has positive effects on bone and cartilage and that it is suitable in the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis." Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15018022

I think this is worthy of inclusion in the "Nutritional value" section.

284rckq (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...at first I was thinking yes, but I'm worried that that doesn't meet WP:MEDRS. NIH sources are often good...but that's only a clinical study. It looks like the research may still be in its preliminary stages, and thus not suitable for inclusion in a WP article. But I'm not an expert on WP:MEDRS. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Double-check nutrition values

The b12 values listed in the article (1.11mcg/100g) don't really match the USDA values (0.76mcg/100g). Most of the values, in fact don't match, but aren't quite as far off. The table should probably be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.137.101 (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Source for Statement

Paragraph one states: "Popular choices for egg consumption are chicken, duck, quail, roe, and caviar, but the egg most often consumed by humans is the chicken egg, by a wide margin." What is the source for this? I was under the impression that it is only true in the USA and parts of Europe that chicken eggs dominate consumption. I have been told that duck eggs are far more common globally, especially in Asian cuisine. I know that my own Dutch ancestors ate primarily duck eggs in the Netherlands, and that the Yup'ik of western Alaska greatly prefer duck eggs. Is there a source for this info? It seems very American-centric. Wcbpolish (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Heart Disease Post

I just updated health issues section citing recently published research studies. It is about heart disease, but the etiology is different from the relationship of eggs with fat and cholesterol in the earlier section. Anastomoses (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Addition to the Heart disease section

A study of over 117 thousand people by the Harvard School of Public Health shows that "consumption of up to 1 egg per day is unlikely to have substantial overall impact on the risk of CHD or stroke among healthy men and women". --82.170.113.123 (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

References

 Question: Why not "consumption of up to 1 egg per day is unlikely to have substantial overall impact on the risk of CHD or stroke among healthy men and women. The apparent increased risk of CHD associated with higher egg consumption among diabetic participants warrants further research." - which is the whole "conclusion" there? There's comment on diabetes with other research in the article already which this might complement.

thanks for {{reflist-talk}} - never seen that before (and it's used 648 times apparently - must be editing with my eyes shut...) Begoon ^talk 04:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to further improve the text and reference. Thanks for looking into it. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 09:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Begoon, as I understand it, the diabetic participants are basically a potential moderator. The core of their findings is related to CHD and strokes, therefore the title of the paper is about egg consumption and "Risk of Cardiovascular Disease". What I had in mind - see this Talk page section's title - is for the text to complement what is currently in the Heart disease section, mostly because that ends with research that concluded eating eggs leads to a "significantly higher risk of heart attack and stroke", which appears to be contradicted by the Harvard findings. Please add an internal link for the first mention of CHD. It's a named reference ("HarvardJAMA"); maybe use it for text in both the Heart disease and Type 2 diabetes sections? Just an idea; I'm not an expert when it comes to this research by any means. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Both good points. I did this: [2]. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 12:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Justification for using "humans" instead of "mankind"

Hi, friendly editors. In case it becomes a topic of dispute, I just wanted to let everyone know this:

I recently made an edit to replace "mankind" with "humans," which was reverted with the comment: "Restored perfectly sound language, and reverted offensive political correctness."

I'd prefer not to get into an argument here about whether gender-neutral language is political correctness, or the ethical reaction to unethical linguistic conventions, so I checked and Wikipedia's style guidelines. They say that say that gender-neutral language should be used when possible, so I think my edit requires no more justification. I reverted the revert, bringing the article back to where I had it.

Plus, the gender-neutral language policy is already being followed in the rest of the article!