Talk:Egg (food)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles 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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] phobia

anyone know the name given to phobia of eggs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.179.220 (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ovophobia ++Arx Fortis (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gray yolks

Why do yolks turn gray on the outside after they've sat for a while?

Answer: Oxidation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.67.243 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Motherearthnews External Link

The External Link "Nutritional value of free range eggs compared with factory eggs" to http://www.motherearthnews.com/eggs/ doesnt work anymore --Janzomaster 12:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preservability

Does anyone have infos on the preservability on eggs? I think it should be added --Janzomaster 12:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

YES!! Sorry to get so excited but I've been waiting for an opportunity to talk about this. A while back I asked this question on a message bord: How long can you keep a hard boiled egg in the freezer before it goes off? Needless to say not everybody understood the question, and comments like Goes off, like what - a bomb? an alarm clock? Goes off to college? were frequent. But I digress. Anyway, the most useful comments were:
  • Hard-cooked yolks can be frozen to use later for toppings or garnishes. Carefully place the yolks in a single layer in a saucepan and add enough water to come at least 1 inch above the yolks. Cover and quickly bring just to boiling. Remove from the heat and let stand, covered, in the hot water about 15 minutes. Remove with a slotted spoon, drain well and package for freezing.
  • This link: Freezing Eggs
And of course some jokers:
  • But why would you want to? What's it ever done to you? How would you like to be put in a freezer and see how long it takes you to go off? I'm reporting you to the Society for Horrible Incidents To Eggs, or S.H.I.T.E as it's known, and that's what you'll do if you eat frozen hard boiled eggs.....
Hope that helps! Think outside the box 13:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The links look good and the info should be on the page, I'll add it if I have time. One suggestion for anyone else adding the info, I'd use the sources at the bottom of the wca.net page provide by TOTB rather than the page itself. WLU 14:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How about information on irradiating eggs? Is this a commonly done anywhere in the world? -- Guest Edit 14:15 PDT September 15, 2007

[edit] Archiving

I archived a bunch of the talk page. WLU 13:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Price

If white eggs are more popular in the USA, why do brown ones cost more there? Do they taste better? Are they more nutritous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.67.243 (talk • contribs) brown laying hens require more feed. Thus they are more expensive. No other differences though.Azskeptic (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no difference in nutrition or flavor between the two (I believe that is mentioned in the article). I've never noticed a price difference between the two, though. If you've seen this, are you sure they were exactly the same? Eggs come in different sizes, grades, with qualifiers such as organic/free range/etc., and may be pasteurized in-shell, all of which will affect the price. digfarenough (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Egg allergy?

In the allergy section it says that one of the most commmon food allergies is eggs. The information is not cited and I'm going to remove it in 3 days, unless someone cites it, because I've never heard of anyone allergic to Eggs.

2stepMW 23:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Too tired to do proper editing at the moment, but here is a good link [1] plus there are a fair few others if you do a google search. Egg allergy is one of the main reasons why someone wouldn't have a vaccination from the flu virus in winter - due to its preparation in albumen... I always thought this was common knowledge actually.-Localzuk(talk) 23:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I actually had no clue. Well thats fine, it stays. 2stepMW 13:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The link provided states that it's the most common in kids up to three, then fades quickly. I've edited to reflect this. To state that it's the most common in adults would require a different citation. WLU 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


eggs cost too much ..... i like eggs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.97.18.35 (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issues in Mass Production

Hey, Jwhitfield. Some of the revisions you made to this section are purely POV and should not have been made. Regulation implies mandatory guidelines which producers must obey - such as the Animal Welfare Act, local, state or federal laws. As you say, the United Egg Producers Certified program only has 80% voluntary compliance - that is NOT regulation. Why would you remove a referenced source such as the AVMA from this article? They have far more credibility than a private, voluntary regulation program. I will revert your edits unless you can justify removing documented content with which you did not agree. This is the Issues section of this article, so both sides of the issue should be presented without favoring either. Thanks Bob98133 13:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw in a comment: I've been watching these edits over the past couple days. The involved parties appear to believe strongly in their own views (i.e. some POV-looking things from both sides), though the information that has been added often appears useful and appropriate. Clearly this subject is somewhat controversial, so I suggest making sure that every added comment has a reference and that no referenced claim be removed without discussion here. Perhaps neither side will end up with exactly the content they want, but at least we'll end up with a more factual description of the issues in mass production. digfarenough (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That was how we ended up with a well sourced and informative issues section in the first place - by ensuring all aspects of it had a source. It was a right mess before this idea was introduced, and it now has gone back to being a mess.-Localzuk(talk) 18:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was probably just stating the obvious. Perhaps we could revert that section to a much older version and put in a comment asking people to discuss new additions on the talk page before making them? Or would that just be making too much work out of something which will probably sort itself out in a short time? digfarenough (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That is what I was thinking of doing. I will go ahead and do it and then new things should be discussed here.-Localzuk(talk) 19:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I added a short comment to the section about discussing changes here. Hopefully people will see it. digfarenough (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for jumping in on this. Sounds like a fair and reasonable approach. Bob98133 21:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for upsetting anyone with this information. I also apologize for my not understanding how this system works, I am very new to editing on here. I was attempting to provide an unbiased opinion, althought I am, admittedly, biased on the subject. Some of the information in the current article seems very biased to me and some of it untrue (such as the beak trimming with a saw). I understand that the United Egg Producers is a voluntary organization. What I failed to mention in the article is that a very large percentage of retailers require that eggs be UEP certified. I hesitate to list those retailers here simply because they are not listed on the website and I don't want to break any rules. However, all packages of eggs approved by the UEP are labeled as such. Also, the UEP certified program is carried out and audited on a regular basis by the United States Department of Agriculture. And my biggest reasoning behind listing this information was to inform people that by buying UEP certified eggs, they would know that these eggs were from chickens raised under animal care guidelines. And as far as the deleting of the AVMA reference is concerned, I did not. I actually left the original AVMA reference in there, and referenced more information from the AVMA site as well. And I do agree with the AVMA on its views of induced molting procedures. If the reference was not in the page then I don't understand it. If you will look at my last edit on the page the reference was still included. If you also notice, there is a reference from the Vegetarian Society included in the article, which in my opinion, seems to be to be a very biased source to use in this article. However, I did not delete that information.
In my opinion, this article will never please everyone no matter who writes it. However, I do wish to include some more information about the subject to attempt to provide an unbiased opinion. I know the information from the UEP website is very credible, but I would like to hear your opinions on it. I also would value any help with writing this article. I would like nothing more than for the article to present both sides of the issue fairly.
Thanks, Jwhitfield 18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. It's just that we want to avoid an edit war. Perhaps the easiest way to start improving the article is to add a {{Fact}} tag to any claims that have no reference and that you believe are untrue (like the de-breaking with a saw). If no one adds a reference in a reasonable amount of time, just delete the statement or, better still, replace them with a claim from a reliable source. I think claims that reference United Egg are reasonable. It may be wise to add them as a few sentences in a new paragraph between the two that are already there: a brief mention of UEP and perhaps a short description of any relevant animal care guidelines. By the way, it does appear that you removed the reference to AVMA (you still mentioned it in the text, but you removed the ref tag that linked to the website--two different senses of "reference"). Anyhow, basically: add any claim you want, but be sure the claim comes specifically from a reasonable source (if in doubt, add it I suppose, and let others decide the quality of the source). That's my two cents for the day :) digfarenough (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate it. I see what you mean on the AVMA reference. It wasn't my intention to remove the link, sorry about that. I suppose I was being a little long winded about the whole situation as well. I don't know what you think, but perhaps the United Egg Producers could use an entire article on its own. Not sure how to go about setting one of those up though. Thanks for the help. Jwhitfield 18:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I just made some edits to the article and noticed an external link that criticised the "Animal Care Certified" logo by the UEP. The link now redirects to eggindustry.com but you can view the old version here. It seems UEP got some flak[2][3] for misleading/false advertising and rebranded Animal Care Certified to UEP certified.[4] It would be worthy of a mention if you decide to start the UEP article. --Dodo bird 19:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Whoever edited the Edwina Currie, salmonella and the UK Lion mark section, there was substantial pasting from the http://www.gotoworkonanegg.co.uk/ and http://www.britegg.co.uk/lionquality05/startlionquality.html websites. Copyright violations can get pages deleted - please do not simply paste information from random internet pages. WLU 06:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Egg Picking

I have added under the Culture section, a paragraph about the Baltimore Easter tradition of "Picking Eggs" which is something that, mine own family included, is still quite a common tradition among families from the city —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank52489 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calories

Something is awry here. In the nutrition box on the right it says an egg is 150 kcal in the article it says its 60 calories for the yolk and 15 calories for the white. 1. can we use one measurement word 2. 60+15!=150 -71.209.105.132 03:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is because the nutritional chart is giving information per 100 g of egg, whereas the text is describing the information for a single large egg, which is just over half that mass (according to the size chart later in the article). The article actually says 60 Calories (uppercase), which agrees, because 1 Calorie = 1000 calories = 1 kcal. If this is confusing, though, perhaps something could be done to the nutrition chart to say Calorie instead of kcal. digfarenough (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

To settle this matter once and for all, can someone provide a source showing just how many calories are in an egg yolk? The article used to say 60 Calories (the capital C indicates kilocalories), but a recent edit changed it to 60 calories. Which is correct? A Google search failed to turn up any useful sources, and this fact in the article could use a source anyways, so anything anyone has would be great. --clpo13(talk) 05:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I undid that edit. This page, for instance, gives 75 Calories in one large egg. These are kcal, big Calories, for that is the unit universally (as far as I've ever seen) used for foods. Our page on joules gives that there are 4,184 J in 1 food Calorie (take the reciprocal of the conversion factor given on that page). A random page online agrees that "A food calorie contains 4,184 joules." The user who made that edit claimed "An egg yolk does not contain 60 Calories (note the capital C, as in kilocalories). That would be 60,000 calories. It's 60 calories, 250 joules, not 60 kilocalories or 250 kj." in the edit summary. That person is clearly wrong. I offer this as the final word: From the American Egg board, this pdf clearly states that a whole egg contains 72 kcal (Calories). I say that settles it. digfarenough (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
All right, great. Sources are good. I know next to nothing about eggs and their nutritional value, so I thought I'd ask before taking any action. --clpo13(talk) 05:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nutrient Content

Hi there. I'm new to editing wiki's so I figured I should post here before making any major edits. Just want to say there is no such thing as a "100g egg", as was recently edited in the "cholesterol and fat" section of this wiki (except perhaps an ostrich egg). The standard weight of a chicken egg you buy in the store is about 50g. I feel this should be reflected in the wiki and, as such, display 5g fat per egg. To say 10g of fat gives the impression that eggs are an unhealthy/fatty food which, for a healthy individual, they are not. In fact, changing the nutrient database table to be per 50g egg would be a good idea too imho. Any thoughts on this? Cheers Iconia (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they're 40-50g. But that's the template it's for 100g (about 2 eggs). You need to take the discussion over to the template at: Template_talk:nutritionalvalue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfkeeper (talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is this "protective coating" that keeps eggs fresh?

"A hen puts a protective coating (called the bloom) on the egg as she lays it. The bloom keeps contaminants from entering pores in the shell. Processing plants wash the eggs and coat them with mineral oil to replace the boolm. This protective coating is removed when you wash or boil the egg." -- http://www.bfhd.wa.gov/forms/brochures/BFHD-E-0022a.pdf

Also mentioned on:

Ewlyahoocom (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lion Mark

Is it just me, or does the "Edwina Currie, Salmonella, Lion Mark" section seem a little off topic? It's really just a bit of historical trivia about England's food labeling. It doesn't offer any information germane to the title of the article. I'm deleting it; feel free to make a Lion Mark article. Nosferatublue (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Could go into an article on egg contamination. I remember putting a bit of work into that section one cold, boring morning. Sigh... Seems like it could go somewhere but I'm really at a loss to where. WLU (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hard-boiled, soft-boiled, scrambled, sunny-side up, etc.

I came to this page to find a list of styles of how eggs are prepared. Perhaps someone knows enough to insert it into the culinary use section?JeffreyGomez (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harold McGee is a "food scientist"?

The entry on him lists "B.S in Literature (1973) from the California Institute of Technology". How can he be a cited source on health issues related to cholesterol?

Sslevine (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

His articles on food science have been published in Nature. His book is considered a seminal work in food science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.138.32 (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Culture and egging sections

I've put the "culture" and "egging" sections removed by User:Nosferatublue back. While it is true that the article is about the food, eggs have been consumed since antiquity and thus play a very important part in agricultural life. In Regards to the culture section, it was the only link to egg decoration which was otherwise an orphaned article. Large-scale removals of this nature should not be done without an announcement on the talk page. I have, however, removed the line about the single egging incdent in the "Egging" section. As for the section about salmonella and eggs, I'm ambivalent about it. It does seem like trivia to me, and much of it is also repeated in the Edwina Currie article, where I think it is more appropriate. Graham87 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind my grumble about egg decoration - the article is actually at the title egg decorating. I also added a quick mention of the egg carton. Graham87 16:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fat content reporting out of proportion

Sec 4.1 Egg_(food)#Cholesterol_and_fat lists that a 100g chicken egg contains appx. 10g fat. Considering the data below which indicate that the largest widely available chicken eggs average 71g, the fat content figure of 10g is misleading and prejudicial against egg consumption.

A more precise, NPOV estimate would be to state that, according to a UK site, a medium (Av. 58g) egg contains appx. 5.8g fat. I would like to edit the page to reflect this. Echochamber (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how using a medium sized egg is less POV, although I guess a 100g egg is pretty big. From the examples given, it appears that the fat content of eggs is 10% of the weight of the egg. Since chicken egg sizes and weights are listed below this section, perhaps stating the fat content as a percentage (10%)of the weight would be totally NPOV? Bob98133 (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)