Talk:Eggs as food/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Nutritional value

FWIW, this is the first place I came to get some dietary information about eggs. How much protein, cholesterol, etc., does an egg have? I think that would be relevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.16.250.9 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 27 August 2004

This is highly variable amongst species and even, to some extent, within one based on diet. --Belg4mit 14:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Egg shell colours

Regarding the statement -- "In the USA chicken eggs are overwhelmingly white, because of the mistaken perception that these eggs are purer than light-brown eggs" I really think this is somewhat overstated. I don't know of any grocery stores that don't have brown-shelled eggs nowadays; even the bargain places like Save-A-Lot have them. - RedWordSmith 18:36, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What chemical colours the egg shells? Surely for green and blue, it isn't copper or chrome? Any thoughts on the colouring agent?--152.91.9.131 23:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

regional size variation

Why are chicken eggs so much larger in the UK than in north america? Lupin 03:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eggs in America are sorted by size and grade; "jumbo" eggs can be quite large. Sizing and grading of eggs should be added to this article eventually. A2Kafir 2 July 2005 16:49 (UTC)

Added new section

I added a section to discuss health issues associated with eggs - both nutrition and sanitaion.... --Blackcats 18:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Consumption

It would have been interesting to know how many eggs can be consumed in one session. And do different methods of egg preperation allow one to consume more eggs - for instance can a man eat 12 hard boiled eggs in one sitting and feel differently to if he had taken a dozen poached? Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.173.34 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 16 June 2005

Dog Egg (Or Dog's Egg / Barker's Egg)

This was my first port of call to supplement my research into Dog Eggs, something one of my associates talks of frequently. Can't seem to see anything on here about them though, any suggestions? Also, I am quite curious as to the exact nature of a Bear's Egg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.173.34 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 16 June 2005

International bias

In addition, the egg industry launched its continuing "Incredible Edible Egg" campaign

I assume this is a US campaign, as I know of no such campaign in the UK. This should be clarified, as it is incorrect for (I assume) the vast majority of countries. --me_and 13:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Same for Australia, I believe this should be either changed so that it says the campaign exists only in America, or it should be deleted. Darkcraft 11:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

animal protein essential to human health?

On a cost/gram basis eggs are often the cheapest source of complete animal protein which is essential to health and well being.

I'm sure some vegans would disagree... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.112.117 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 August 2005

As would I, although I'm not, alas, a vegan. --Mothperson cocoon 17:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Noted plant sources of complete protein. --Joehaer 16:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

"Double-yolker"

I've just added an image of some "double-yolkers". Not sure if there is a more technical definition (or how colloquial it is) but, now there's a picture, I think it should really be mentioned in the article. Anyone know it by other names? violet/riga (t) 11:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly: http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s409538.htm violet/riga (t) 16:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Spinning Egg Trivia

Regarding the Trivia section where it states that spinning an egg, abruptly stopping it, then letting go:

This seems a bit superfluous to determine whether an egg is still raw or hard-boiled. The easier observation would be whether the egg will spin on either of its longitudinal end with ease. A hard-boiled egg will spin more effectively than it's raw counterpart. The reason being that a raw egg has liquid inside that sloshes around; thus, the centrifugal forces are disrupted. In the end, trying to spin the raw egg on its end will result in it wobbling to its side.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.66.252 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 5 November 2005

I don't know about that method, but I can attest that the stop and release way is easy and reliable. (Don't know that any of it is needed for an encyclopedia article, but there it is.) -- Kbh3rd 06:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Not really a method, but more of an observation, seeing as to how the method mentioned in the article seems a bit too much. Rather than trying to spin a raw egg, then stopping it abruptly, then letting go to see it spin some more, all anyone would really need to do is to just try to spin a raw egg. It is more difficult to spin a raw egg than a hard-boiled one. By the above method I mentioned, you eliminate two steps. If you'd like, next time you have a hard-boiled egg, spin it and watch it spin effortless on its end. Try the same with a raw egg and it won't do much but lay on its side.

ethical issues

I will move the 'ethical issues' further down the page. Surely more people are interested in the food than in the ethics. Wikipedia tries to give minority views a place, but 'cooking and preparation' is more important in an article with the title "Egg (food)" --Michaël 17:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing this section from the article. I don't see similar "ethical issues" for honey, milk, leather etc. -- Dodo bird 17:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather than remove it from this article - it may be worth adding sections to those other pages. It is a key part of veganism to avoid egg. So it should be included here. Also, if you will have a section entitled 'egg attacks' which is trivia, surely ethical issues are just as important to include? I am reverting your edits to include the section and the links. Please discuss reasons to remove here before doing so again. -Localzuk ^(talk) 18:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm no fan of the 'egg attacks' section as well. The 'ethical issues' just stick out like a sore thumb to me. And it is really poorly written(many feel, many believe, most feel.. etc.). If anyone has intentions on working on it, I would suggest rewording the ethical issues into a 'farming practice' subtopic. -- Dodo bird 20:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to add on, it's a key part of veganism not to eat chicken, duck, prawns etc too. The interest should not be that of the vegan philosophy but more of the living condition and treatment of laying hens. Which again, I believe would better fit under 'farming practice' rather than 'ethical issues'. I'm also questioning the appropriateness of the external links. It can seem like POV pushing, taking into account the lack of other links, and that ethical issues make up a small part of this article. -- Dodo bird 21:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If there are not enough links about the non-ethical issues part of the article then the easy answer is to add some. The links are directly related to eggs so should stay. It is 'veganism' to not eat any animal related product. Stating that is a red herring - the fact is there are ethical issues with eggs and that is what should be discussed and that is what the section attempts to do. I will try and tidy it up (I was very busy up to yesterday but now have some free time). I think it should stay as ethical issues as there is more to the complaint against eggs than farming practices. -Localzuk ^(talk) 12:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now re-written the section, including references. I have removed the religious mentioning and 'liquid-meat' as I could not find a reference for that. -Localzuk ^(talk) 12:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What are the other issues against eggs as food apart from farming practice? I tried the veganism and other related articles but couldn't find anything specific about it. -- Dodo bird 14:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to think of a way to include them in the article but couldn't figure out a way to include them. Reasons include the fact that eggs are a possible being and eating them would be killing a possible being. The reference to the budhism etc... and them being 'liquid meat' is valid (although I removed it due to not being able to find references to back this up). Another reason, which is partly to do with farming practices is the fact that vegans won't eat non-intensively farmed eggs - as this could and would lead to corners being cut in order to increase profits. -Localzuk ^(talk) 14:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Birds can lay unfertilised eggs and I would assume that is so for factory hens. Do you mean vegans wont eat "intensively farmed eggs"? Aren't all animal products non vegan? -- Dodo bird 15:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed (that was a mental slip-up)... Vegans won't eat any animal products or use products where animals are used in their production. -Localzuk ^(talk) 16:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Some articles and sites re: battery farming for reference

[1](article - egg farming is bad for hens)

[2](photos)

[3](bbc article on chicken rescue)

[4](article - the battery hen)

[5](mentioned 'free range' mislabelling)

This article[6] mentioned the removal of the animal care certified logo by March 31 2006.

issues - cage size, wire flooring, waste material, hormones, stress, debeaking, lifespan, eventually slaughtered, prolaspe[7], force molting[8] -- Dodo bird 14:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I will do some more changes at some point. -Localzuk ^(talk) 16:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

egg shell color (2)

I have an argument with someone that sayes the food of that the chicken eat efects the color of the egg shell, and am saying the same thing as the article, that it depened on the chicken breed. my question is... can the chicken food efects the color of the egg shell?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.80.177.96 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 January 2006

White shell eggs appearing in free range brown hens[9]. Suggests sunlight or food(vegetation) may affect shell color.

This is a dead link. However, your point is complete nonsense. I have 4 hens that lay white eggs. Their feather colors are black, brown, and buff (2). They are all varieties of leghorn and so would be expected to lay white eggs. If you look at the illustrations for the white egg layers sold by the best-known hatchery in the US, you will see that of the breeds they sell that produce production-quality white eggs, the majority are not white http://www.mcmurrayhatchery.com/category/white_egg_layers.html.

Eggshell color[10]. Also suggests food and sunlight may affect shell color.

They affect the depth of color in some circumstances, not the actual color. An egg that is affected in this way will have the true color at one end (usually the fat end) and will gradate down to a color that is slightly paler on the other end.

There are differences in cholestrol level between different colored eggs[11] although the difference is minute. So I reworded the sentence to remove the "absolutely no difference" claim -- Dodo bird 17:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the source doesn't elaborate on the research methods, I would strongly question it. It is fairly well established that diet and stress levels strongly correlate with levels of various substances in the eggs http://www.motherearthnews.com/eggs. Unless the studies guaranteed that these factors were exactly the same (like different colored eggs taken from the same flock), I would tend to discount them.

Since I have actual experience with chickens and their eggs, I would be more than happy to serve as a resource on issues related to the nature and habits of chickens and the various farming practices involved.

Counterfeit Eggs

This article has some alarming information about egg counterfeiting in China, along with information identifying them. http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijto/vol2n1/eggs.xml#documentHeading-TheHuman-MadeEggs

24.123.198.38 18:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that is such a great source of information! I definitely hope to incorporate the information into this article one day. 24.19.184.243 09:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cholesterol Issues

I've read that the amount of HDL(good) cholesterol in an egg outweighs the LDL (bad) cholesterol, so eating the egg yolk isn't a big concern. 165.230.46.150 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a misconception that HDL and LDL cholesterol are actually different things. They are all cholesterol, and all cholesterol is chemically the same thing. HDL and LDL actually refer to the "packaging" of the cholesterol (the lipoproteins that surround it in the bloodstream, that determine how it's accessed and used by the body). This packaging is broken down during digestion, so there is no difference between eating HDL or LDL cholesterol, because it all ends up the same before being absorbed into your body. What matters to your health is how your body then re-packages that cholesterol once it's in your bloodstream, which is a completely different process.

The health impacts of consuming foods high in cholesterol have been a matter for some debate for a while now. For a long time it was generally assumed that eating a lot of cholesterol resulted in a large increase in the amount of cholesterol in the blood, but some studies have since shown that cholesterol in the diet doesn't have nearly as large an effect as previously thought (which has been used as the basis for a lot of "vindication" marketing by egg producers). However, the studies are not all unanimous on this point, so the debate does continue in some circles. -- Foogod 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethical issues--Not NPOV

This particular section seems biased toward a vegetarian or vegan POV. PETA doesn't look like a fair or neutral source. I will tag this section and invite a discussion for solutions to occur. Philip Gronowski 16:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Peta are used as an exmaple that farms buy their chicks that kill the males. It is a fact, I can find many more sources that state the same thing, post video's that show the same thing, books etc... Peta is one of the examples, there are 2. We should not have to provide many different sources of information for each fact. Also, please don't just jump on the 'Oh no, pro vegan propaganda' bandwagon which seems to happen constantly on any article that highlights that people find ethical issues with these things.

A few more examples of the same thing are [12], [13] and those cannot be claimed to be as controversial as PETA - which is what this complaint seems to be based upon. I will swap the PETA reference out and put these 2 in instead

Can you give any other examples, other than sources, of how this section is POV? (Sorry if I sound rash, I am just sick of people complaining about things that are blatantly not POV but just don't seem to fit with that person's own ideals).-Localzuk ^(talk) 17:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is [14] which is the UK governments 'Defra'/'Adas' (advisory service). -Localzuk ^(talk) 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a bit wrong in putting a POV tag up but, I think that we should look for some different links. We could certainly keep a few of the ones you just put up, but we could also put something that is not from a pro vegan or vegetarian website. I admit that every site referenced will have its own particular bias, but maybe one or two websites that are not vegan or vegetarian will add to the credibility of the section. Two different sources from opposing sides will at least educate the reader to both sides.

For the POV example this sentence seems unfair:

"Most farms also buy the chicks from hatcheries where the male chicks are killed at birth"

You do not know that "most" farmers buy chicks from hatcheries that kill the males. If we put "some farms also buy the chicks from hatcheries where the male chicks are killed at birth" the section would be nicer. I won't put that in unless you agree. I also do not like how people consider anything PETA propaganda, but I can see their reasoning. Hopefully no hard feelings Philip Gronowski 18:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I would still disagree with changing from most to some. The article (defra link) I posted above mentiones that some 30million chicks are killed in the uk each year as they are male. This, along with the figure of 21million who are in cages shows that it is most [15]. -Localzuk ^(talk) 19:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well that source is only representing the United Kingdom, not the entire world. Merely saying the 30 million male chicks are killed each year does not equate to most farmers buying from those particular slaughterhouse. One particular slaughterhouse may kill more of its male chicks while another sells them off. Could you also rephrase your last sentence, I do not completly understand it. Philip Gronowski 19:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What I am trying to say that, as an example of the situation (ok, it is UK based) 30 Million male chicks are killed each year and 21 Million chickens are in battery farms - this shows that over half of chicks bred for batter farms are killed each year, which would also mean that most breeders kill the males.

Can you provide a reference to state otherwise? As it stands, there is a good example of the male chicks being killed and nothing to state they are sold off (what would they be sold off for by the way? The are the wrong type of chicken for meat as they do not have enough bodyweight on them so would be of no use to a meat product manufacturer). I will look for some examples relating to the USA if you wish, so we have some of both sides of the Atlantic. It will not be possible to find a 'neutral' source for the entire world. -Localzuk ^(talk) 20:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe I already said earlier that every source we find will be biased. Do the studies you cited refer to free-range chickens? Also it is rather unlikely that more than half the births a chicken gives will be male. Anyway I have to leave the computer for a while. I will get back tomorrow. Fun talking with you. Philip Gronowski 21:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessary to find a totally unbiased source as long as the cited parts are attributed to the source accordingly. eg. SPCA New Zealand reported that "because male birds don't lay eggs, 50% of all one-day-old chicks are killed by gassing or instantaneous fragmentation." --Dodo bird 03:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

One problem with the current version is that it drops hints on poor living conditions as defence to the free range labels without actually touching on the living condition issues. I was hoping that additional info can be added using the version I edited. Also, the line "Some vegetarians do not find it unacceptable to eat eggs as the bird is not killed and the eggs remain unfertilized..." seems unecessary when simply stating that the chickens gets killed when their production rates drop gets the point across. It need not be presented as a vegan issue. --Dodo bird 03:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

One issue I found with your statistics Localzuk ^(talk) is that they are from two different sources. Also those statistics are not a worldwide veiw. The "Most farms" part is the only major issue I see with neutrality. Would this work for you?:

"A number of farms also buy the chicks from hatcheries where the male chicks are killed at birth"

It is rather neutral and readers can decide by themselves. Philip Gronowski 00:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is better than some, but still does not reflect the actual nature of battery farming. I think Dodo bird's rewrite is much better now. -Localzuk ^(talk) 12:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The facts laid out so far suggest that male birds of the laying strain are commercially useless. There is little reason to doubt that hatcheries breeding the laying strain kills their males. I don't know the facts, but I would think that in smaller scale/less advanced farms/countries where there is no seperate strain for meat and laying hens(seems unlikely), the male chicks do not get killed indiscriminately.(For food use of male chicks, see capon). The reworded header "Issues with mass production" sort of indirectly remove the "accusations" on non-mass production farms. --Dodo bird 16:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a reliable citation for this, because I've never come across any documentation for what actual practices are, but the Bold textvastBold text majority of chickens sold to back yard farmers are dual purpose birds. This means a bird that will put on a fair amount of weight, but will also lay well. What you lose with this is feed conversion: because the bird is heavier, it also needs food to maintain the weight. However, most small farmers are more concerned with the quality of the eggs than maximum ROI. Additionally, true free range birds get a significant portion of their food from foraging, which lessens the feed bill anyway.

What this means is that probably many, if not most chickens that are sexed out as roosters wind up being sold like this http://www.mcmurrayhatchery.com/product/all_heavies.html or even this http://www.mcmurrayhatchery.com/product/frying_pan_special.html, for the production birds. Also, if you buy "straight run" (unsexed) chicks, they are often priced somewhere between hens and roosters. Many farmers like this option, and are happy to eat these chicks as soon as they start crowing. So ultimately these roos do get killed, but then they are livestock and that's what happens to animals that are not pets.

I've seen the photos of heaps of dead chicks as well and don't doubt they are taken outside hatcheries. My own opinion is that these chicks are probably the ones that could not fight free of the shell on their own or had other defects that meant they were unlikely to survive to be healthy adults.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AmyBlankenship (talk • contribs) 04:14, 2 January 2007

Rewrite of Ethical issues section

I changed it to "Issues with mass production", copying the style in the Chicken article. And reworded most of the issues to remove reference to vegetarian/vegan philosphy. I also removed the POV tag. Hope it is acceptable now. --Dodo bird 06:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I like it, except for one thing - why remove the vegetarian/vegan references? -Localzuk ^(talk) 12:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I lumped them in with the "animal welfare proponents". I don't mind seperating them(..proponents, including vegan...etc). But I object to the type of arguments that goes "vegans find the killing of hens unacceptable". Simply stating that the hens gets killed is good enough. --Dodo bird 15:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that, given the style applied to this section, the neutrality should no longer be in dispute. It does not imply the the conditions of the animals are improper is a fact. Instead it states that animal welfare adovocates have concerns with the conditions of the farms, which is a fact. If it is still felt that this section is lopsided, perhaps this section would be better represented as a link to an article on sustainibility/animal welfare?

I think it's acceptable now but I'll let someone else remove the NPOV-section tag. I now start off the section with a link to the article "Factory farming". I then lump all the practices mentioned in the section into one paragraph. I say that animal activists object to said practices in the second paragraph. I suppose it's a small change but it clearly separates out "what happens" with "what people think". I'm also tempted to rename the section "Issues with mass production as raised by animal activists" but that's too long a section name for my taste. ;) 24.19.184.243 16:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's another thought. Factory farming exists not because farmers/food processing corporations want to torture their chickens; it exists ultimately because it makes the most economical sense for the supply side. If we can work this key point into the section (possibly by lifting some content from factory farming), that will sink any POV disputes once and for all. The section already hints at that: force molting is in order to increase egg production for example. We just need to make sure we explain other described practices' economical values (yeah I guess it's obvious but explicit statements won't hurt). 24.19.184.243 04:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Chicken egg size

Can the egg size tables be moved into the "Egg characteristic" section? And is the classification used in the U.S. only or is it a commonly used grading method? --Dodo bird 16:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This section would also benefit from some context. That is, it says that one scale is "Modern" and that one is "Traditional", but does not say when or why the change occured. --Icarus 03:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Goose Egg

Where if at all should we put the expression the big goose egg or just goose egg. its used sometimes during hockey broadcastes, an example is they would say something like "...and with that goal they broke the big goose egg"

That can go in the Egg disambiguation page. Snafflekid 19:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Focus on the chicken egg, mention other varieties

This article has two large-ish dilemmas:

First: the subject "Egg (food)" makes a useful but awkward distinction between the scientific interest people have in animal reproduction and the culinary interest people have in the chicken egg.

Second: although some people certainly eat certain non-chicken eggs, when an egg is referred to in a cooking or eating context, the meaning is "chicken egg," not "bird egg." This food article should reflect that focus on the chicken egg and reserve discussion of other edible eggs for a subsection.

As a solution, titling the entry "chicken egg" might solve the awkward "Egg (food)" title and enable a scientific discussion of the chicken egg that sheds light on the culinary applications. It might be useful to have another subsection that deals with various international cuisines' cooking. Wipfeln 23:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The title shouldn't be a big deal. I assume the egg article probably has a link to here, so anyone searching for information presented here is probably only one click away at most. And the claim when an egg is referred to in a cooking or eating context, the meaning is "chicken egg," not "bird egg." seems a bit western-centric: century eggs for example are made with duck eggs but no one ever bothers to say "century duck eggs". There is little information comparing chicken vs. non-chicken egg anyway so I don't see the need to single out "chicken egg". As for "varous international cuisines' cooking", that's pretty much covered by Category:Egg and the various ethnic cuisine articles and categories. 24.19.184.243 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Chicken eggs are really overwhelmingly preferred the world over. Yes, some cultures use other eggs, but the fact is that practically everyone cooks with chicken eggs much more than with other eggs. The important role the chicken egg plays in diet and cooking necessitates that this article deal with the chicken egg specifically. The reason so little comparison with other egg types is available is that the non-chicken eggs are just not represented in great enough proportions to even warrant a comparison with the chicken egg (the egg standard).

Wipfeln 16:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the article still covers other eggs in proportion to their use (so mostly chicken eggs). Basically, nothing is really accomplished by your edits: the article by reflection of reality is already focused on chicken eggs, but it does also cover other kinds of bird eggs in proportion to their use (therefore not widely mentioned in article). Putting a more general focus of "bird eggs as food" in the intro therefore better reflects the article's structure and intent. The main focus after all is simply eggs used as food; it just so happens in the case of food that it's most often chicken eggs. 24.19.184.243 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Note also that chicken egg currently redirects to this article anyway. 24.19.184.243 16:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph was much improved and wikified by introducing the egg as an ovum. The article as it stands is disjointed and implies that other eggs are much more prevalent than they are. Actually, I propose that this "egg (food)" article be made more general to include caviar, turtle eggs, and all uses of eggs as food, and the main culinary and dietary discussion of chicken eggs be placed under the title "chicken egg"Wipfeln 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if you really really want to make this a chicken egg article (and I perfectly understand why), I won't stop you. The introduction of egg as ovum is slightly superfluous since that's where article Egg (biology) comes in, but then again, it's perfectly fine to repeat since apparently the biology-based article have no links to this article.

I reviewed the history of both Egg (food) and Chicken egg, and it appears that "Chicken egg" originally existed as an article but quickly ended up merging and redirecting here, apparently because this article is created earlier and already contains everything the "chicken egg" article contained. So if you're making this article about "Chicken egg", the "Egg (food)" article will need to have most of its chicken-egg content emptied out (or someone will propose the merge again). And then since there are already articles on roe and caviar, you're not left with much of anything for "egg (food)" other than "chicken eggs are most commonly used as food, followed by other bird eggs; eggs from fish and turtle are also used" plus a bunch of links to the respective articles. Keep that in mind, and go wild. ;) 24.19.184.243 04:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)