Talk:Butter/Archive 1

Archive 1

older entries

"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?

Butter is great on meetloaf and catchup and other cute things like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.228.62 (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

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 o zdfghdtfhyfghfghfghfghfghfghr 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)

In Sweden there is the same "color" codes as in France, however it is always labeled salted or unsalted. --90.224.181.144 22:01, 13 June 2007 (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)

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)

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?

"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.

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 salted, 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)

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)

  The color of the butter can change throughout the seasons of the year, based on 

the condition of the grass eaten. It is not illegal for dairy operators to blend cream from different herds and different times, though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.167.161 (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Nutritional values

Butter, unsalted

Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)
Energy	2,999 kJ (717 kcal)
Carbohydrates	0 g
Fat	81 g
Saturated	51 g
Monounsaturated	21 g
Polyunsaturated	3 g
Protein	1 g
Vitamins	Quantity %DV†
Vitamin A equiv.	76% 684 μg
Other constituents	Quantity
Cholesterol	215 mg
Fat percentage can vary. See also Types of butter.
†Percentages estimated using US recommendations for adults, except for potassium, which is estimated based on expert recommendation from the National Academies.

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)

Grade AA?

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

Butter is graded by letter code, and sometimes a numerical number, according to flavor, color, texture, aroma and body. AA (93 score), A (92 score), and B (90 score) are the letter codes and numerical scores used. Danny1501 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.143.33 (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Shapes

We need pictures comparing the shapes of the western and eastern kinds! Only today did I learn that they ate stubbier butter in the west! This trend confuses me! --Golbez 06:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

new genetic mutation

with this new spreadable butter, some of the information about butter not being spreadable at colder temperatures and such will have to be changed

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18917406

The chemical composition i.e. which fatty acids the butter consists of has always given effect on the butter since the dawn of cows... so that probably won't change with genetic modifications of cows. --90.224.181.144 21:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The picture

In the article there is a picture of a butter churn. In the text under the picture the word modern is mentioned. Butter churns of today is continuous. It there anyone out there who has a picture of a continuous butter churn please replace the current picture 'cause it's kind of old fashioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.181.144 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 June 2007

Equivalency

2 sticks butter = 1 cup —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.28.170.176 (talk) 01:41:05, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

History questions

Fresh butter is largely a European product, but Braudel speaks of "the wide zone in which rancid butter was used." Can anyone provide more details about that? (Also speaking of Braudel, in The Mediterranian and the Mediterranian World in the Age of Philip the Second (repeated in The Structures of Everyday Life) he mentions a Spanish cardinal who brought a supply of olive oil in his luggage on traveling to the Netherlands, as the Spanish believed at that time that butter encouraged leprosy. That seems like it ought to make it into this article somewhere...) ExOttoyuhr 17:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting confused. On How It's Made, season 6, episode 75, the show claims that "Butter is mentioned in the [Bible's] Old Testament: Abraham offered it to angels." I don't see any proof in Genesis; all I see is that Abraham gave the choice steer and curds and milk to God and his angels in disguise (Chapter 18). Do you have any proof that butter is mentioned in the Old Testament, especially Genesis? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember the thing when I said that I don't see any proof that butter is mentioned in Genesis? I'm not mistaken, because I wrote to "Ask A Franciscan" in AmericanCatholic.org, and guess what they answered? "The Hebrew word that we normally translate as 'curds' does not, that I can see, mean 'butter.' So, I would say no, Abraham does not offer butter." Guess the narrator in How It's Made made a mistake after all. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Chart showing relationships of different kinds of butter

Milk products and production relationships chart (click for details)

I translated and updated this nifty chart that shows the relationship of all the dairy products and production and the different kinds of butters, but since this is a featured article I don't just want to plunk it in anywhere, so I'd like to know where people think it would fit best. My suggestion would be in the types of butter section. Let me know what you think! pschemp | talk 02:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that chart is pretty awesome. Didn't check yet to see if it was in the article, but even for my own reference it is great, thanks for sharing it.Chef Tanner (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's Paula's Home Cookin' Y'all!

I don't know why, I have the strangest desire to put Paula Deen on this page as a 'Butter Enthusist' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.88.171 (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering this, I don't blame you! hwj (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Too US-centric

Why is there a whole section on the shape of butter packaging in the USA? Sit down and prepare yourselves for a shock Americaners - there are other countries in the world!! No, its true, believe me! Europe for example. 80.2.205.244 (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to get over the shock that you think Europe is a country.

I wanted at least to add a comment saying that in Europe butter is generally not sold in sticks, but in blocks of 250g. But I see that the page is locked. 86.156.77.113 (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it really is unnecessarily Americanised. At least call the section "Shape of Butter in the United States of America."

Is Wikipedia supposed to include unintentional satire?

Anyway, I vote in favour of declaring this page to be lacking in a worldwide point of view. --68.148.129.210 (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Rancid butter?

I am suprised there is no section here on some peoples preference for rancid butter. It is not uncommon for people to prefer to leave their butter unrefridgerated and at room temp (still below melting temp) for days or weeks at a time. With some time rancidifcation does occur and many people actually prefer this far stronger and somewhat sour tasting butter, refered to sometimes as aged butter or rancid butter. On another note, no mention of canned/tinned butter either? While a very well done article it is missing some important points. Russeasby (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is mention of fermented butter, produced either by using fermented cream, or adding lactic acid and bacterial culture to unfermented cream from which butter is then made. This ferments over time, but isn't really the same as rancid butter I suppose, which would probably be made from pasteurised butter. In turn, the bacteria responsible for this rancidity would not be lactic acid fermenters, would produce different flavours, and might very well pose a health risk. Halogenated (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Butter

How long will butter be good out of the frig?

Wayne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.250.230 (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional Properties

Anybody know what the water activity is for butter? --anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.147.128 (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nutritional values

please tell me who is too dumb to count up to 100...

in the last table on the page

• • • the addition of all main values (carbo, fat, protein) does not give 100g as stated in the tables header), but about (0+81+1=) 82g.

• • • additionally (as if the above mistake would not be enough) the subcategory's "Fat" values, which should give 81g in the sum, give (51+21+3=) 74g...

Holy shit, a stupid must have written this article.... fucking dumb!

It is possible that butter may contain things other than fat, carbs, and protein such as moisture. Also when several numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number and totaled small errors in the total often occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weetoddid (talk • contribs) 02:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is believed by 2010 D Coyles Butter Company will have an annual turnover of 1.5 Million pounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.239.3 (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing language

I request editing in order to add the Haitian creole equivalent to the list of languages in the left-side column. Rajkiandris--Rajkiandris (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Raw cream butter is now manufactured

The article states "Commercial raw cream butter is virtually unheard-of in the United States." But this is incorrect. Organic Pastures Dairy (http://www.organicpastures.com/) has been making raw cream butter for several years. It is available directly from the manufacturer, through farmers markets, and through co-operatives that feature organic foods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.103.18 (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong conversion

Under the butter stick image at the top right, it says that (US I assume) butter sticks are 4 oz/110g, it should be 113g not 110g. Unless you are stating that metric countries have 110g sticks, if so it should be clarified. 83.228.141.125 (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC) (Gabriel R.)

I agree. 4 Ounces equals 113.398093 Grams. Maybe it should say 113.4 or at least 113. Why is this article not editable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.10.9 (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Churning milk misleading?

On the talk page for churning, I mention:

I'm not sure how accurate it is to say butter is made by churning 'milk,' as it seems in the process, it is only the cream that is churned to make the butter, which is first skimmed from whole, unhomogenized milk

Such a statement is also listed here in this article.

Shiggity (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Relative stability of Ghee

The stability of ghee is attributed to antioxidants therein. I believe it is in fact primarily due to the lack of water. From the Wiki page on rancidity: "Hydrolytic rancidity occurs when water splits fatty acid chains away from the glycerol backbone in triglycerides (fats)." And also "[Oxidative rancidity] primarily occurs with unsaturated fats [i.e., not butter]." The reference given for existing claim is hard to verify and of unclear nature (is it written by a scientist or a chef?). Unfortunately the best ref I have been able to find myself is the wiki page on rancidity which I presume is bad juju to use as a reference, so I am not going to update the butter page at this time. If anyone knows of a solid reference for this, please update (both here and on the Ghee page)!

SimonFunk (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

They start off by saying that the water has "cooked off," so props on that little bit. But then come these mysterious "antioxidants," which I have never heard of in this context. If this is to stay in the article, the antioxidants should be identified. If the original source does not identify them, then the statement should probably be removed. For Simon, the source to which this info is attribute, Harold McGee, is a renowned food scientist/food chemist. I don't believe he ever trained as a chef, but I could be wrong.Zlama (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Link needs updating

This link is no longer valid. Their search engine has moved...

Our search engine has moved.

Our old Search Engine is going away. You've reached this page because some sites are still referencing our old search engine. But don't worry, you still have -94 days before this page goes away.

For now, you can continue your search in our new search, by clicking this link: http://search.oregonstate.edu/?q=butter&client=default_frontend&as_sitesearch=food.oregonstate.edu

Please update this link. Zlama (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Remove Word "organic" from the Nutrition section in reference to Mary Enig

Mary Enig's Wikipedia page and the top Google hits for her name have no mention of Dr. Enig's views on organic food. Instead, it seems that she is largely a proponent of eating butter in general. The word organic is mentioned once in the referenced article, but it does not connect this to Dr. Enig's views. Since no other sources regarding Dr. Enig mention that she specifically supports organic butter over conventional butter, and this article does not address any possible differences between organic butter and conventional butter, I think that this descriptor should be removed. 205.215.210.10 (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Reading the source, I agree. I've removed the "organic" qualifier and tweaked the wording to better match the source. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Explanation for substitute products

Products like "I can't believe it's not butter" abound. Why? An explanation should be provided in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrincodi (talk • contribs) 18:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Ghee jar.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ghee jar.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Butter and Hunger Satiation

The Weston A Price guy is a kook. The comment about butter satisfying hunger (citation 44) should be cited to a credible source or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leastdream (talk • contribs) 18:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Typo in Health and Nutrition section

Third paragraph, last sentence. "Manufactures" should be "manufacturers." PamFromMD2 (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)PamFromMD2

So fix it. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't fix it. The edit feature is locked, for me at least. PamFromMD2 (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)PamFromMD

Well, that's annoying. Sorry, my bad. The article was locked due to an absurd amount of vandalism about a year ago. I've fixed the problem here. As a new user, you will be "autoconfirmed" (allowed to edit pages with this level of block) after four days and 10 edits. Welcome and happy editing! - SummerPhD (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Density of butter

I believe that the density stated is incorrect. I searched the internet in vain for a reliable figure, none could be found, so I decided to measure the density of two samples of butter myself. As accurately as I could determine, both samples (one Welsh, one Danish) measured approximately 0.94. I then contacted two sources of dairy products to obtain a figure, and from Lurpak (Arla foods) I was informed that the density of their butter is 0.94 gm/cc.

If I could edit the article I (I think it is semi-protected) I would do so, but clearly I can't use a private e-mail response or an unsubstantiated private experiment as a suitable "reference" for the figure of 0.94 which I believe to be correct; what can I do?

S Sycamore (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Seymour Sycamore

Well, I'd suggest starting with the source cited for the 911 g/l figure. Is it reliable? If not, and you have reason to believe the figure given is incorrect, we can simply remove it. Next, if the source is reliable, but we're somehow misquoting it or misconstruing what it says (perhaps an erroneous conversion of kg/m3 to g/l?), we should correct that. If, however, the source is reliable and we're accurately reporting what it says, we'd need something reliable disputing that figure to remove it or another reliable source to cite an alternate figure. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. |Personally, I don't think the source cited is particularly reliable for this specific piece of information - it is just one of many sources giving differing figures, often wildy in error - that's why I went to the trouble of ascertaining a realistic figure for myself. I belive an unreliable piece of information is better removed than left in, and if you can do that then I'd be satisfied for the present. S Sycamore (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea whether the source cited is a reliable source or not. Unless I have reason to believe it is, I can't personally remove the info (as that would be me saying it is an unreliable source). It what ways does the source not meet the criteria listed at WP:RS? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

UK Butter size

The current article states butter is not sold in metric measurments. This is incorrect. Here is a link to a UK supermarket price comparision site showing the quanities.

http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk/#/Shopping/FindProducts.aspx?Query=Butter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.92.1 (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

true, this page shows only metric packs:

http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk/shelves/Butter_And_Spreads_in_ASDA.html?_fty=Butter Samatarou (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Remove a few things to lessen redundancy?

Due to the article being semi-protected, and thus I being unable to edit it, I am suggesting here to edit the "Elsewhere, (Outside of the United States)..." beginning from the section "Size and shape of butter packaging" to simply "Outside of the United States...". It just seems redundant to have "Elsewhere", when one phrase is enough. Smortypi (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Makes sense to me. I tossed in an "of" because the sentence works better with it. Horologium (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Well, I'll acknowledge that to you it might, but if I had written it that way at school my English teachers would have failed me. Are you at least aware that in much of the English speaking world, the correct expression is "Outside the United States", and your form is just plain wrong? (However, noting from early in the article the use of the spelling color, rather than colour, I will accept US spelling and grammar for the article.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Density units

The reference cited gives the density of butter as 911 kg/m^3. The UK/US conversion was 1535.5 lb/yd^3. Correct significant figures would arguably either be 1536 or 1540.

But I switched to 56.9 lb/ft^3, because I think that if people know a density in UK/US measurement, it is water at 62.4 lb/ft^3. Ronstew (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

butter is a gooey sauce that can be poured over ur potatoes and bacon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shwingler (talk • contribs) 21:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The density given in the article is incorrect. A half cup of butter is listed as weighing 113.5 g (found on the label of a stick of butter), or 227 g for a full cup. Dividing this by 236 mL (the number of mL in a cup) yields 0.959 g/mL, not the 0.911 g/mL given in the article. I would have corrected this in the article, but it is write protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.221.221 (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Size and shape of butter packaging

Size and shape of butter packaging ORIGINAL DOCUMENT

In the United States, butter is usually produced in 4-ounce sticks, wrapped in waxed or foiled paper and sold four to a one-pound carton. This practice is believed to have originated in 1907, when Swift and Company began packaging butter in this manner for mass distribution.[33]

Western-pack shape butter

Due to historical differences in butter printers (the machines which cut and package butter),[34] these sticks are commonly produced in two different shapes: The dominant shape east of the Rocky Mountains is the Elgin, or Eastern-pack shape, named for a dairy in Elgin, Illinois. The sticks are 121 millimetres (4.8 in) long and 32 millimetres (1.3 in) wide and are typically sold stacked two by two in elongated cube-shaped boxes.[34] West of the Rocky Mountains, butter printers standardized on a different shape that is now referred to as the Western-pack shape. These butter sticks are 80 millimetres (3.1 in) long and 38 millimetres (1.5 in) wide and are usually sold with four sticks packed side-by-side in a flat, rectangular box.[34]

CORRECTED LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS The dominant shape east of the Rocky Mountains is the Elgin, or Eastern-pack shape, named for a dairy in Elgin, Illinois. The sticks are 121 millimetres (4.8 in) long and 32 millimetres (1.3 in) wide and are typically sold with four sticks packed side-by-side in a flat, rectangular box. West of the Rocky Mountains, butter printers standardized on a different shape that is now referred to as the Western-pack shape. These butter sticks are 80 millimetres (3.1 in) long and 38 millimetres (1.5 in) wide and are stacked two by two in elongated cube-shaped boxes.

I have no source for this other than my own visits to the grocery store. If Cook's Illustrated is being correctly quoted then they are in error. MidlandReader (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

size?

The stick's wrapper is usually marked off as eight tablespoons (120 ml or 4.2 imp fl oz; 4.1 US fl oz); the actual volume of one stick is approximately nine tablespoons (130 ml or 4.6 imp fl oz; 4.4 US fl oz).

There is a difference between the actual volume and the volume specified on the packaging?? Is there a source to this?--160.39.205.73 (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Butter in religion

Would such a section be appropriate?— Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 11:24, November 16, 2013‎

That would depend. Are there reliable sources for this? - SummerPhD (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandals

Any reason why this page (of all the pages on Wikipedia) is so often vandalized? What is the obsession over butter's wikipedia page... doesn't make sense. There is always someone making immature nonsense edits to the page. Even though they are often quickly reverted, it is getting a little annoying wouldn't you agree? Best, Meatsgains (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Topics that younger readers are more likely to need to read seem to suffer more. Betsy Ross, for instance, sees periods of vandalism, but mostly during the American school year. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@SummerPhD: Okay that makes sense. It can be assumed younger students are looking up butter and most likely the process in which it is made, leading to the vandalism. Thanks for the info! Meatsgains (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest / Health advice / Pro-margarine bias

"Vegetable fats cause fewer adverse health consequences than animal fats, and for this reason, margarine is a healthier food choice than butter. Soft margarine is generally healthier than hard margarine." - This statement provides biased health advice which is against the Wikipedia guidelines.

"Research suggests that persons who receive appropriate health advice on improving cardiovascular health with good diet choices are likely to accept that advice, change their eating habits, and improve their health." - This statement is biased toward the pro-margarine industry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.200.27.9 (talk • contribs) 13:04, April 10, 2014‎

Yes, the statements favor margarine over butter. No, there is not an indication of bias.

Bias requires a preconceived opinion. A judge (or the Mayo Clinic or a literature review) ruling in favor of a defendant (or margarine) is not necessarily biased. If the defendant, however, is the judges nephew there might be bias. Why would respected medical sources be biased in favor of a particular type of food product? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Dogma. HiLo48 (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No one could reasonable say margarine is healthier than butter, just from a common sense point of view. Butter is a natural product. Margarine is an artificially produced product (solid spread produced from naturally liquid oil). There are tribes like the Maasai that have diets high in saturated fat, and they have never had heart problems. And ghee (clarified butter) has been used in India for thousands of years, with very few health problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.169.38 (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

A few 100% natural products for you to check out: arsenic, lead, strychnine, belladonna... If you happen to consume enough of any of these all-natural products, you will die -- unless you are treated with horrible artificial chemicals in time. Your common sense point of view in these cases would give you an all-natural, organic death.

The Maasai, like most traditional, small scale societies have lives almost entirely free of cancer, heart disease and diabetes. Like most traditional, small scale societies, they typically die well before such diseaes of old age can affect them (see The World Until Yesterday by Jared Diamond). Their diet of raw meat, raw milk and raw blood (with a bit of clay thrown in) is a great way to contract a variety of diseases that modern societies prevent through hand washing, safe food handling, cooking, sanitary sewer systems and vaccinations. Failing that, modern societies have a variety of techniques for curing illness that the Maasai and other traditional societies do not. Typical life expectancy at birth: 42-44 (BBC, 2004) Would you conclude that eating dirt prevents Alzheimer's?

India, which has more than a few differences (other than butter use) from, for example, the United States (far more vegetarians, far fewer flush toilets, etc.) has an average life expectancy of 67-70 (WHO, 2013) verses the United States 77-80 (WHO, 2013). Do flush toilets, then, cause heart disease?

All of this, of course, meaningless for this article. It is synthesis to pick out the rate of coronary artery disease from various populations, butter consumption from those same populations and assume a causative connection. Instead, we go with what reliable sources directly say about the topic.

Independent reliable sources, cited in the article (rather than websites and books promoting the so-called "paleolithic" fad diet) say quite clearly that margarine is a healthier food choice than butter. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, far too many of the health claims for margarine have come from people (and places) more likely to make a profit by selling margarine. There are many different products that can be called margarine, some no doubt healthier than others. I want to see an objective analysis of the possible negatives of margarine. Finally, is it really the job of this article to be making an attempt at a comparison? HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The health section in question cites two reviews by Cochrane, the Mayo Clinic and various national health organizations. All of these are the gold standard of sources for biomedical information. These are not people selling margarine, so-called "paleolithic" diet nonsense, appeals to nature BS, etc. These are independent reliable sources.

If you believe you have better sources, please share. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Where are the negatives about margarine? Are there none? And, which form of margarine? And why are we doing a comparison? Is someone trying to score an anti-butter point? And why did you ignore these questions last time I asked them? HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have independent reliable sources discussing butter that you would like to add to this article about butter, please share. The independent reliable sources compare butter -- the subject of this article -- to margarine. I ignored the question the last time you asked either because of a simple oversight on my part or because the margarine lobby is paying me and finds that question to be a sensitive issue. (Oddly, the companies selling the most margarine also sell a lot of butter, but are part of the anti-butter lobby. Strange bedfellows.) The everything-natural-is-good-for-you-(let's-not-talk-about-natural-poisons)-everything-manmade-will-kill-you lobby, on the other hand, never pays me on time. Grassroots organizations are like that. (Because they are more "natural", though, they are more likely to be right, I'm sure.) - SummerPhD (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sarcastic bullshit does not an answer make. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me simplify this for you. You asked why we don't discuss negatives of margarine, discuss various forms of margarine and implied there is an anti-butter agenda here. Then you asked why I supposedly ignored a question when a more parsimonious (and WP:AGF) answer existed. This article is about butter. We summarize what independent reliable sources say about butter. If independent reliable sources (reviews by Cochrane, the Mayo Clinic and various national health organizations) discuss the health aspects of butter verses breatharianism, we would cover that as well. If independent reliable sources discuss margarine, we do not include it in the article on butter. If independent reliable sources discuss advantages of butter over margarine, that would belong here. If you have such sources, please share. If you would like me research that for you, PM me for my rates and scheduling. If you would like discuss a worldwide, pro-margarine/anti-butter bias/conspiracy, you'll need independent reliable sources discussing us I mean, the alleged conspiracy. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

butter contains highest estrogen

butter contains highest estrogen level. source : 'Butter was highest' in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/512140 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.8.206 (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Size and shape of butter packaging RE: Ireland

In the section "Size and shape of butter packaging" there is an inaccuracy.

"In the UK and Ireland, and in some other regions historically accustomed to using British measures, this was traditionally ½lb and 1 lb packs; since metrication, pack sizes have changed to similar metric sizes such as 250g and 500g."

Ireland's pure butter (not always for spreads, margarine or similar) is measured by weight in the EXACT metric equivalent of imperial measurements = 227g and 454g.

Source example 1 (shows Irish butter sizes): http://www.tesco.ie/groceries/product/search/default.aspx?searchBox=butter&N=4294829923

Source example 2 (shows the same brands of butter in UK sizes): http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/search/default.aspx?searchBox=butter&newSort=true&search=Search&N=4294698004

I suggest a change to something along the lines of:

"In the UK and Ireland, and in some other regions historically accustomed to using British measures, this was traditionally ½lb and 1 lb packs; since metrication, pack sizes in the UK have changed to similar metric sizes such as 250g and 500g while in Ireland the exact metric equivelants of 227g and 454g are used."

Dermotmorgan (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

How

How does the salt lower the melting point of the butter? Please tell me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.38.136 (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

To add to column of kind oil: Ghee - Saturated 7.926 g, Monounsaturated 3.678 g, Polyunsaturated 0.473 g, smoke point 252°C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.144.146 (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I can add; do you have a source? Airplaneman ✈ 17:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Why no mention of 3.27 % trans fat in butter ?

SOurce : http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/132?fg=&man=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=25&offset=&sort=&qlookup=butter

This should be mentioned especially in the comparative chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.91.25 (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If this is mentioned, then it should be explained that the trans fat is "natural trans fat", in this case CLA, which is not associated with health dangers, and may have health benefits. The trans fat in butter is not what is commonly meant when people refer to "trans fat". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.58.69 (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Butter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050908055231/http://www.imace.org:80/graphique/prod-eu.htm to http://www.imace.org/graphique/prod-eu.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050930172448/http://www.imace.org:80/margarine/stat.htm to http://www.imace.org/margarine/stat.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050923112615/http://www.fas.usda.gov:80/dlp2/circular/1999/99-07Dairy/toc.htm to http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp2/circular/1999/99-07dairy/toc.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927025358/http://www.ukwhitegoods.co.uk/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=668 to http://www.ukwhitegoods.co.uk/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=668
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051126084811/http://www.allergysa.org:80/milk.htm to http://www.allergysa.org/milk.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070323040945/http://food.oregonstate.edu:80/l/butter.html to http://food.oregonstate.edu/l/butter.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

McGee citations, numerous

The McGee citations in the Notes section are incomplete, giving no way at that point to identify the source document. However, there is one document cited in the References section. The first mention/citation/whatever should provide the full information, not the last one, in a different section.

McGee is a very well respected and knowledgeable scientist, so I am not questioning his knowledge. However, the material attributed to him is somewhat problematic, IMO. For example, this statement: "Because of this, ghee can keep for six to eight months under normal conditions.[12]"

McGee may have written these very words, but I can pretty much guarantee that he also, at some prior point, specified what these normal conditions are. Since ghee is not a product widely used in the West, perhaps he is referring to what were considered normal conditions in India, for example.

Not to open a whole can of worms, but isn't one of the advantages of ghee that it doesn't require refrigeration? So, where a Westerner, seeing the words normal conditions might assume they meant in the refrigerator where fresh butter is kept, the actual conditions referred to are more likely storing at room temperature. This is confusing, to say the least.Zlama (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Just checked - the actual words are "Ordinary butter spoils in only ten days in much of the country [India], while the clarified fat keeps six to eight months." So you're right that he doesn't say anything about normal conditions... but it's not clear (to me) what it should be replaced with. Ant (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Possibly requires a citation for History

The History sections says "The earliest butter would have been from sheep or goat's milk; cattle are not thought to have been domesticated for another thousand years." This seems to have been put together from two items from McGee (see this revision for more evidence that this is where this comes from):

• "Archaeological evidence suggests that sheep and goats were domesticated... a thousand years before... cattle" (p. 10, as cited), and
• "...butter was no doubt discovered in the earliest days of dairying."

I'm not sure that the speculation is warranted - any other opinions? Ant (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

April Fools' Day

Butter also has many non-culinary, traditional uses which are specific to certain cultures. For instance, in North America, applying butter to the handle of a door is a common prank on April Fools' Day.

Really? I'd like a source on that.

Even with a legitimate citation, if that is the only non-culinary, traditional use the author can come up with, why mention it? It strikes me as completely throw away and not really appropriate in this sort of article. Zlama (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. This is the exact problem I have with Wikipedia. Suggestions are made and then never followed up on, articles are written that have clear flaws but then cannot be altered because everything is always semi-protected. And then of course they want your money. I will never give money to this website. 2601:140:8302:E260:BC0F:A1E5:FC72:6078 (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Evaluating Butter Article

The introduction two paragraphs do not have enough citations for the amount of facts in them. There needs to be a specific reference for every fact. Overall, this article seems to have a lot of information that is not cited properly or not cited at all. The production section needs more relevant facts and more of an ordered layout. It is short compared to some of the other sections in the article, and I believe it one of the more important parts. Some of the citations are out of date. Citation 42 about saturated fat is heavily swayed and is talking about only the negative aspects of butter and saturated foods. This article could be improved upon by adding more references in the beginning. Also, citation 46 does not have a link that works, and the nutritional information section states a fact, "butter is high in vitamin A," but does not cite the source. More sources should be used to make the nutritional information section longer. Julia033 (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

About your first two sentences, please read WP:LEAD and reconsider what you wrote. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2017

204.137.100.17 (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. ChamithN (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Woman Making Butter image is NOT of a woman making butter

An unclear illustration, which some believe is not butter

The words "De Radice" (radice being radish or root vegetable...as seen in the foreground of the picture) were snipped off of the original image, which was also mis-identified as "making butter" by someone who didn't bother to read the artist's caption.

http://www.mw.mcmaster.ca/scriptorium/images/3016w-MakingButter.html

The woman is using a stand up mortar and pestle sort of thing apparently to grind radishes. A low open vessel would not be used to make butter. A real butter churn would be covered and the dasher would be a paddle-like item, not the pestle as shown.

Somebody snipped the original with obvious intent to deceive. This ought to be rectified by replacing "grinding radishes" with an actual "making butter" image. There are a lot of them out there.

Bfotk (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I see no "obvious intent to deceive". - SummerPhD (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not terribly clear what that image depicts. This is a better one, I think. Jonathunder (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Cropping an original title that contradicts someone's erroneous labeling of the cut as churning butter after the error is pointed out is clearly deception. The next logical step would be to delete the root vegetables prominently placed in the foreground by the 13th century creator of the picture...the one who put on the "De Radice" title. Bfotk (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

now that the nutritional/health inferiority of butter is getting questioned, its price was rised by the food industry

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4560734/Butter-prices-surge-53-huge-demand-increase.html

-might be not the best source, also might fall under 'Recentism'. however, butter prices did jump up recently and the reason may well be the spreading common belief of "it was all hastily drawn wrong conclusions plus margarine lobby that made us believe that butter is bad and margarine is better". so i am trying to direct attention to this because it may be (or soon become) relevant for this article. 80.99.38.199 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC).

Invalid assumption in:

Several "spreadable" butters have been developed. These remain softer at colder temperatures and are therefore easier to use directly out of refrigeration.

This is invalid, since butter is not supposed to stored at a position in the fridge that is too cold for it to stay soft enough. Which is usually the top shelf. Everyone knows that, and learns it from being told by his parents. On what planet are people so primitive that they haven’t found that out yet, nor moved abroad? (Okay, I know. No need to tell me.) — 89.1.191.108 (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Butter is a dairy product containing up to 80% butterfat

The very first line, surely this is wrong? It should be "at least 80% butterfat" or "more than 80% butterfat" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.202.32.39 (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No, because it starts out as cream, which has only ~30% fat. And then, the amount of churning defines how much fat % (and buttermilk) you end up with. I don’t think >80% is even possible with normal methods, because of the water that’s locked-in. — 89.1.191.108 (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Butter alternatives

In response to HiLo48's request for justification on adding a section on butter alternatives, I added statements from and links to scientific studies talking about cardiovascular benefits of substituting other things for butter as well as some layman reports by health authorities which also have published on the concept of butter alternatives.

I integrated the health history into this new butter alternatives section as well. It might be the case that a "butter alternatives" article should be created independently and that various articles should link to it, but even in that case, I feel that it is merited to summarize publications on this topic in this article. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Where profits are involved one must be very careful about the claims by and on behalf of competing products. We should not be implying that one product needs to be replaced with another. Listing alternatives without saying why (in that part of the article) is thus a problem. There have been many studies suggesting all sorts of things about butter and its competitors. We can report what reliable sources say about it, but cannot take a position on the matter. Also, if we imply that butter needs replacing because of alleged problems, we really need to apply equivalent standards to the alternatives. Potential problems have been found with at least some of the alternatives. To just list alternatives, thereby implying that butter is problematic, without mentioning issues with the alternatives, is unacceptable. It would probably be going too far to list ALL the issues, so I'd suggest leaving the alternatives out. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48I hesitate to take your suggestion to leave the alternatives section out entirely but I would like to respond to your concerns in some way. My first thought would be that I could fork this into an article called Butter substitution, then have the list, a health discussion, and advice from organizations about doing the substitution.

About profits - there are areas on Wikipedia where there is risk of commercial intervention but I do not see unbranded food concepts as being particularly high risk at this time. I should mention that I am sharing this information on behalf of Consumer Reports, the United States equivalent of your Australian Choice (Australian consumer organisation). We publish food and health information from the US government and medical organizations, and I came to this butter article because of our own work. My organization does have a bias which says that people should consume less fat. I would like to make a health claim here that says that health organizations commonly give the advice that people should eat less butter. I cited the Cochrane Collaboration, Mayo Clinic, National Heart Foundation of Australia, and my own organization as saying this, but to go into more detail would be as you said, undue.

How would you feel about my forking this content into its own article, putting everything there, and then keeping a statement in this article which said something like "Many health organizations advise that consumers should use less fats in their diet and cooking and eat less butter because of the cardiovascular problems caused by the fat in many people's diets. In addition to eating less butter, these organizations recommend replacing butter with butter substitutes which are purported to have fewer adverse effects." I would also look for information about the health benefits of butter, if I can find any sources. How does this strike you? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Are there no conflicting opinions, even scientific ones? Are your "proposed" butter alternatives 100% harmless for all people in all situations? HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I want to assume that there at least are defined positions taken by various organizations and associated with various research studies. I just added more information about the origin of the idea that saturated fat (fat from butter) is bad, and some responses to that idea. The best response that I have right now is that I myself do not understand the information which I am contributing to this article, but am trying to summarize what I read as I study the sources and am not sure how this should look in the end. There are conflicting opinions to be presented. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is more complicated than I thought and I am not sure how to present good information. I do want to present the sides to the debate and I think I can do that, but I have not yet thought through how this should be done. I am still thinking and have been talking with others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I want to close my participation in this for a while. I am sure that I do not know what is best. I am unable to find authoritative sources which present health comparative health recommendations between butter and butter substitutes. I would participate in discussions if anyone else found sources from which to derive information. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

In Andrew Schenck's corner bakery in Brentwood, he uses carrot oil instead of butter. If you mix 40 eggs with a 80 grams of carrot oil, it will be a great alternative for butter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.128.113.65 (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2018

Hanishgoyal11 (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The link no. 50 in the reference section is dead link while i have similar data, i want to replace this dead link with my own link which has genuine content and my own content

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DBigXrayᗙ 11:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2018

Dead link 50 replacement with similar content at hanishkumar11.com/2018/11/rice-bran-oil-health-benefits.html Hanishgoyal11 (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That link does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. See WP:RS for details. You may find WP:COI helpful as well. Deli nk (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2016

Very informative article about butter. But can you please normalize the table all to 100gram (or a 100%). If people would directly compare the different oils and butter, they really could go wrong with their conclusions For example, the saturated fats in butter are 63%, which is lower than coconut oil for example. At this moment people need to correct the number by hand. B force world (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you asking to change the values of the saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated columns into percentages of the total fat in each oil? Because the table as it stands now is out of 100g, only out of 100g of the entire oil, including the non-fat components, not just 100g of the total fat in each oil. Cannolis (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

When the nutrition box was moved it was changed to "per US Tbsp " which is not as useful and not standard. Can it please be changed to per 100g? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Butter&type=revision&diff=836245624&oldid=832475901 Mr G (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to explicitly support the use of grams over some country tablespoons as one makes much more sense than the other. Even more so in an encyclopedia. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Please propose exact new wording before re-activating this edit request. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Packaging

This section is confusing. It is unclear to me how the Eastern and Western packaging can have the same mass but different volumes. Surely there is no density difference from one side of the Rockies to the other. Also, the European section suggests that Europe is different from the US in that they sell by mass rather than volume. Yet butter is very typically sold by the pound in the US. Bcostley (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2019

add this into the articel: "Canadian regulations state that butter must be manufactured using milk or milk products and through the use of good manufacturing practices. Additionally, butter must consist of at least 80% milk fat and may contain milk solids, bacteria culture, salt and food color."

Source: "Consolidated federal laws of canada, Food and Drug Regulations". laws.justice.gc.ca. 2019-06-03. Retrieved 2019-07-16. MikeChedly (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Unnecessary content, unencyclopedic. --Zefr (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Cornel butter

If this link is relevant, please someone registered add it to the article (external links or proper place). --5.43.79.250 (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Preliminary research, WP:NOTNEWS, unencyclopedic. --Zefr (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

At subtext of image of the painting; Jan Spanjaert is not a German painter, he was Dutch. Please change. Jespervdw (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for drawing our attention to the error. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

Hey I found 4 dead links, I can help you to edit it, to make it more useful for the public Rana Orabi (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. If you want to update any links, please be specific. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: - I fixed the only dead link that was tagged. In the artilce, you can add {{dead link|date=April 2020}} next to the dead links to tag them, so other editors can try to help fix them. GoingBatty (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Melting temperature

Recently, CBC radio broadcast a news story claiming that palm oil in feed for dairy cows raises the melting point of butter from the cows. Conversely, butter marketed as "organic" is claimed to spread easier at room temperature. A food scientist should be able to write something more authoritative about this. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Other things called butter - what sort of citation is needed?

In the following section, a citation is requested for non-butter items being called "butter" due to their perceived texture.

"Non-dairy items that have a dairy-butter consistency may use "butter" to call that consistency to mind, including food items such as maple butter and witch's butter and nonfood items such as baby bottom butter, hyena butter, and rock butter.[citation needed]"

Is a citation needed for every item in that list to somewhere that describes it as having a "butter-like" or similar texture? TinglyRadiance (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yvetteni, Theresiaclairine, Lisamei.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2022

Should change the graph of tonnes produced to a current year 50.196.253.49 (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

United States - packaging

I'm pretty confident the way the east coast and west coast packages are packed is backwards. The stick sizes are correct, but the packaging arrangement is backwards -- East Coast sticks are packaged in a row, while West Coast sticks are packaged two-on-two.

I tracked back the original source (Cook's Illustrated) and that is what it says, but I think it is wrong as well.

Not sure what to do there, ofc, unless a correct source comes along. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2023

Butter article.

"Food colorings are sometimes added to butter" requires a reference source, else may not be a true statement. Mercury1979 (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done

A period is missing?

Elaine Khosrova traces the butter's invention back to Neolithic-era Africa 8,000 B.C in her book [21] a later Sumerian tablet ...

Apparently, a period is missing before "a later Sumerian tablet". 2803:9800:9007:78C6:713F:F420:B35D:5727 (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for raising that here. I have fixed it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)