Talk:Butter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Butter article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies


Featured article star Butter is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 17, 2006.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on food and drink on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

"Visitors from Europe should know that anything labeled "butter" in the U.S. is salted unless specified otherwise." - This is the same in the UK as well, the rest of Europe too?

No. This is exactly the contrary in France. No surprise we always do exactly the opposite of the British ;-) More seriously I've just there seems to be no label or mention resulting of some EC normalizations on my butter. However in France there's an unwritten color code that red is salted while blue is unsalted. Obviously it's easier to notice in on no-brand or distributor-brand butter than on the "itsee-bitsee teeny weeny yellow polka dot" packaging of well-known commercial brands. Ericd 21:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I want to correct the image caption that refers to "112 English hundredweight" but can't figure out how. A hundredweight is 112 (English) pounds. The caption at the originating web site is where the error comes from.

I also agree that this entry needs work - it is truly bizarre in how its content is distributed... human 08:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I am so tempted to create a "See Also" section with a link to this page -- ~PinkDeoxys~ 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Copyvio

Ugh, I see that most of the history section (and the firkin image) are word-for-word from http://webexhibits.org/butter/history-firkins.html. Their legal page says that "You may not use the exhibits for commercial purposes", which basically rules out use in wikipedia unless if we have special permission from them. (Not that we should be using copied text, anyway). For now, I'm going to remove that image, and make a mental note that the history section needs to be substantially reworked to avoid copyright violation and plagarism. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's all taken care of. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia Section

I removed the following:

Trivia
The German expression alles ist in Butter ("Everything is in butter") means everything is in order. In the Middle ages, fragile articles were transported using butter as we use styrofoam today. They were inserted into warm liquid butter which solidified as it cooled down and so protected the fragile goods. At the destination, the butter was again liquefied and poured off.
The English word "butterfly" has its origins in the medieval superstition that witches transform into butterflies in order to steal farmers' cream or butter.

The German expression is one among I'm sure hundreds of expressions involving the word butter around the world. The "butterfly" origin is interesting - if reliable - but is more about butterflies than butter; butterfly already has an etymology section, and it looks better researched than this factoid to me.

Finally, butter as packing material. That's... interesting. I can't find a source. It sounds, on the face of it, unlikely, becuase (a) there weren't that many fragile things being shipped in the middle ages, (b) Trips in the middle ages took a while, and the butter would become rancid and nasty, and (c) Packing in butter sounds quite expensive and laborous compared to say, straw. Of course, these arguments just make this practice all the more interesting if true, so if somebody can point to a good source for this, I'm all for putting it back in. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) I found this one: http://www.allesinbutter.de/Begriffsbedeutung/begriffsbedeutung.html - would that qualify as a source?

[edit] "Types of Butter" section rewrite

After the discussions on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Butter, I wanted to try to rewrite the "Types of Butter" section, to show how it could be changed from a list to a narrative structure. Unfortunately, I don't actually know anything about butter, so I'm not sure that my rewrite doesn't contain some horrible inaccuracies or distortions. I'm posting the rewrite here; if it's correct, I hope someone will consider adding it to the article. The first paragraph is particularly bad.

  • There are a large variety of butter-making techniques, and different types of production can lead to very different final products. Particularly important is the type of cream used in butter production. These production methods, and the resulting butters, have changed over time, and may vary between cultures.
Before modern factory production, cream was typicaly collected from several milkings before it was used, and was lightly fermented by the time the butter was produced. Butter made from lightly-fermented cream has come to be called cultured butter. During fermentation, the cream naturally sourced as bacteria converted milk sugars into lactic acid. This fermentation produces additional aroma compounds, including diacetyl, leading to a fuller-flavored and more "buttery"-tasting product.[1] Cultured butter is now made from pasteurized cream whose fermentation is produced by the introduction of Lactococcus and Leuconostoc bacteria, and remains the most common type of butter in continental Europe.

Another method for producing cultured butter was developed in the 1970s: fresh cream is produced into butter, to which bacterial cultures and lactic acid are incorporated. The cultured butter flavor grows as the butter is aged in cold storage. This method is more efficient for manufacturers, since aging the cream used to make butter takes more space than storing the finished butter. A similar method is even more efficient, but is not considered real cultured butter: lactic acid and flavor compounds are added to fresh-cream butter, simulating the cultured butter taste. Cultured butter of one form or another is sometimes labeled European-style butter in the United States.

Image:Melting butter.jpg
When heated, butter quickly melts into a thin liquid.

In modern times, dairy products are often pasturized during production to kill bacteria. Butter made from pasturerized fresh cream is called sweet cream butter; this is the dominant category in the United States and the United Kingdom. Production of sweet cream butter became common in the 19th century, with the development of refrigeration and the mechanical cream separator.[2]

Butter created from fresh or cultured unpasteurized cream is raw cream butter. It has a "cleaner" cream flavor, without the cooked-milk notes that pasteurization introduces. Raw cream butter is virtually unheard-of in the United States and is rare in Europe as well.[3]

All of these categories of butter are sold in both salted and unsalted forms. Salted butters have either fine granular salt or a strong brine added to them during the working. Nations that favor sweet cream butter tend to favor salted butter as well, possibly reflecting the blander taste of uncultured butter. The addition of salt flavors the butter and also acts as a preservative.

Several spreadable butters have been developed; these remain softer at colder temperatures and are therefore easier to use directly out of refrigeration. Some modify the makeup of the butter's fat through chemical manipulation of the finished product, some through manipulation of the cattle's feed, and some incorporate vegetable oils into the butter. Whipped butter is another more spreadable product; nitrogen gas is used to aerate the butter, since normal air would encourage oxidation and rancidity.

Another important aspect of production is the amount of butterfat left in the butter during production. In the United States, all products sold as "butter" must contain a minimum of 80% butterfat by weight. European-style butter generally has a higher percentage of butterfat than most U.S. butter, up to 85%. Clarified butter is butter with almost all of its water and milk solids removed, leaving almost-pure butterfat. Clarified butter is made by heating butter to near the boiling point of water, allowing the water to cook off; the remaining components separate by density. Whey proteins form a skin on top, which is removed, and the butterfat is poured off the casein proteins that settle to the bottom. Ghee is clarified butter which is brought to higher temperatures (120 °C/250 °F) once the water has cooked off, allowing the milk solids to brown. This caramelization adds flavor to the ghee, and since dissolved water and oxygen are reduced, ghee is protected longer from rancidity. Ghee can be kept for six to eight months under normal conditions without refrigeration.[4]

I corrected slight error (that is cooking does not reduce rancidity, but cooking removes water and free oxygen from butterfat, which in turn reduces rancidity). Also appended without refrigeration.

[edit] CAS Registry number

Slucas just added "(CAS# 8029-34-3)" in the lead; I reverted it. If nothing else, this doesn't belong as the second word in the article. I'm open to discussion about whether it belongs anywhere in the page at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Butter

why is this a featured article? I laughed my butt off when I opened the front page.

Well people all over the world came together to collaboratively create a free encyclopedic-quality, informative article about. . . butter. :) Its a very good article and somehow you've made butter intresting because I read it twice. congrats to everyone who worked on this and hope you all give each other barnstars. ;) Banana04131 01:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I read the article from beginning to end. It's an excellent article and made a 'prosaic' product interesting. Bravo to all concerned. Aussie Alchemist 03:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I've read it three times now. I deleted my comments above because it seems Banana04131 was mistakenly implying that I wrote the article — even though I didn't write a single word of it. Kudos to User:Bunchofgrapes, who is the main author. Saravask 03:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, all. I just find food an interesting subject: a nice mix of science, history, and culture. Of course, I'm a sucker for all 'prosaic' FAs: I loved shoe polish, for example. People who think TFA should only consist of "serious" topics (whatever that means) are depressing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Mmmm, butter....hydnjo talk 04:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely love this article! hydkat 13:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Uses

After admittedly a quick read-through, I couldn't find any mention of the ancient Greek and Roman use of butter as a skin moisturiser.... A practice that clearly delineated them from the butter-eating barbarians (this last fact is mentioned).... I seem to remember a quotable ancient quote wrapped up with this. Maybe someone could add info and references..... ? I'll try to do so myself, if time permits! Paul James Cowie 06:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Your suggested changes would be welcome, as long as you cite reputable sources. If you don't have time to add the information and ref, maybe you could at least mention your sources here? Thank you. Saravask 08:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] revised intro

Saravask (sorry said sam in edit summary), your arbitrary reversion is very concerning. Regardless of who whipped this article on one of our favourite food substances into shape (respect to BofG), and subject of course to certain important provisos, the fundamental principal is that no one editor can determine what changes are acceptable. Why, you very recently had a problem with "too" which "seemed strange to you", yet you reverted to the version which contained that particularly inelegant formulation (amongst others) when the problem is removed altogether. 203.198.237.30 09:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree. I'll leave this up to Bunchofgrapes' judgment, as most of the changes made in the reverted edit by 203.198.237.30 consist or rearrangements. I really no longer have an opinion on this. Saravask 10:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, often times mere (why quibble) improvements are just about messing around with what ya got, "too". 203.198.237.30 12:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

This article is unbelievably comprehensive for such a mundane subject matter. I am both in awe of the amount of work that has gone into it, and taken aback for the same reason. Sorry if this comment isn't constructive but I had to say something. --Ignignot 14:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Butter mountains

Very nice work, people. I don't want to mess with it since it's the day's FA, but for a few years now, "butter mountains" (and wine lakes) have been a sort of shorthand to criticize the perceived wastefulness of the European Union's agricultural policy. As such, that phrase might have a place in the History section, along with the relevant Butter Production figures? References to the phrase can be found here: [5] [6] -- Peripatetic 15:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

" For manufacturers, this method is more efficient since aging the cream used to make butter takes significantly more space than simply storing the finished butter product." This doesn't make sense. Why would it be more efficient if it takes up more space? Is this a typo?

You've got it backwards; the efficient method is the newer one, that doesn't age the cream. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Question

Nice article! But I'm wondering about the "shelf-life" of butter - when refrigerated, frozen or left at room-temperature. In the "Storage" section, the article mentions that "light and air hasten rancidity" but I don't find any specific information about how long butter lasts in ideal conditions. Anyone know/ able to add that info? J. Van Meter 22:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the answer varies wildly depending on refrigerator temperature, butter moisture content and salinity, and how well wrapped the butter is kept. This site says 3 months in the refrigerator for unsalted, 5 for unsalted, which seems long to me. Land O' Lakes says four months, I'm guessing for their salted butter.
I've added a bit to the article about it in the paragraph you mention. Thanks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is butter yellow?

I understand the particular shade of yellow has to do with feed, as the intro says, but we made some butter today, and cream is white, and just by shaking it, it turned to yellow butter. Why is butter yellower than the cream it is made from? Nohat 05:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing the butterfat is yellow. (Why? I don't know.) In emulsion in the cream, the butterfat is too scattered and in too-small particles to have a big effect on the cream's color, but once a mass of butterfat builds up, it can show its true colors. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waffling

I thought the editors here might be amused by this tidbit in an interview with Chuck Klosterman:

[Wikipedia is] something I'm kind of obsessed with at the moment. The thing that I want to find out is who's doing the entry for butter. There's an entry for butter! What would motivate someone to do that? There's an entry for waffles; I cannot fathom what that person's motive is. And it's good — it's got the history of waffles! It's amazing to me!

Cheers! — Catherine\talk 05:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nutritional values

Butter, unsalted
Nutritional value per 100 g
Energy 720 kcal   3000 kJ
Carbohydrates     0 g
Fat 81 g
- saturated  51 g
- monounsaturated  21 g  
- polyunsaturated  3 g  
Protein 1 g
Vitamin A  684 μg 76%
Cholesterol 215 mg
Fat percentage can vary.
See also Types of butter.
Percentages are relative to US
recommendations for adults.
Source: USDA Nutrient database

I'd like to propose addition of the box on the right to the article. Bunchofgrapes removed an earlier version because of the following reasons:

  • Its appearance is pretty unattractive right now. Columns don't line up, some text is rammed together, etc.
  • It doesn't specify a source. This is a crucial problem.
  • An overall US-centricism, using US facts and US RDAs.

I've tried to address these issues. Would this version be acceptable? Han-Kwang 21:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

OK by me. Thanks for the work. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Does the nutrional value of butter vary significantly from brand to brand? --Oldak Quill 11:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe it does, very much, within the same "style" of butter. Obviously the nutritional value of a home-made sub-saharan 60% fat butter is going to differ from th 80% fat product you find on American supermarket shelves, but all the stuff on supermarket shelves, with the exception of "european style" premium (higher-fat) brands is going to be the same. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Should information on trans-fat in butterfat be included? It's about 2-5%, mainly C18:1 (e.g. J. Dairy Res. 71, 66-73 (2004)). Seems appropriate, because quite some attention is given to the trans-fat levels in margarine. The emphasis on margarine is a bit peculiar from a European perspective, because the main margarine brands have reformulated somewhere in the mid-nineties. Apparently, the situation in the US is different. (User:Hippolyte) 10:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grade AA?

I have some grade AA butter. How is it different from grades A or AAA? Smootsmoot 08:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pure substance, Mechanical or solution?

Is butter a pure substance, a mechanical mixture, or a solution? 207.161.15.137 01:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this a homework question? I think the article answers it all right. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ugly tub

There is a picture of a blue plastic tub with a block of butter in it 2/3rds down the page. It doesnt really benefit the article because a) the picture is small and has a low resolution so you don't really see anything spectacular anyways (it's ugly) and b) there is already a picture of butter further up the page, it is just a waste of space, so i think i should delete it. If you want to stop me, in defence of this masterpiece of photography, just tell me. Otherwise, i will just go ahead and delete it!

--vilem 02:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Can't imagine why someone would vandalize an article about butter, but they did, under the heading of "Butter Production". I don't know how to correct it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.110.200.41 (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't see any vandalism. What is it that you're seeing? Picaroon 02:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] types of butter

I would think that having a list of the types w/ subheadings for each would be easier to read than the current essay style. If I'm I the only one who thinks so I'll forget about it, so I wanted to check with other readers for their opinions. 24.124.29.130 11:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)TRCunning

Prose is generally considered better form than lists, for some reason. For example, excessive listiness is almost always considered a problem needing addressing at WP:FAC. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/u/t/Talk%7EButter_5386.html"