Talk:Balut (food)/Archive 1

Archive 1

puked a little

I just tosed cookies a little reading this article, maybe there should be some sort of warning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.56.81 (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh. How is this more disgusting than veal or lamb or suckling pig or foie gras or raw oysters or caviar or steaming lobsters and crab alive in your cultures? Or yeah... an egg? Is it because it's recognizably an animal? An egg is also an embryo when you think of it. It tastes exactly just like boiled egg in chicken soup. The only thing that disgusts eaters is their own perceptions and anthropomorphizing something which doesn't actually have a working brain yet (unlike the aforementioned western 'delicacies'). That said, some of us do prefer penoy over balut(including me)--Astepintooblivion (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoa whoa, defensive much? The difference between all those foods and balut is that balut is literally a cooked fetus, (which DOES have a brain, genius). If it tastes just like a boiled egg in chicken soup as you say, why not just make some chicken soup and toss some boiled eggs into it? Yonskii (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

well yes dumb dumb, this is more disgusting than any of the things you mentioned because it's not even a @#$%&()% ANIMAL at the point it's eaten.

Well it's more digusting to me because you eat the entire animal, including eyes, bones, organs, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.167.186 (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Clean up you comments people.

Develpoment

A few years back I tried eating balut, but after I cracked open the egg, there was a much more developed chick in it than shown in the pictures. Because I owned a lovebird at the time, I just couldn't find it in me to eat this little thing. Was the bird suppossed to be so developed or more like the egg in the pictures? 66.244.207.166 (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Aelange —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.207.166 (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal

Is this product legal? I only say this because it says it is sold at night? —the preceding unsigned comment is by 7121989 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That's just to say they're mostly a nighttime snack rather than being served for, say, breakfast. -- Krash 04:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There have not been any legislated material prohibiting the abortion of poultry fetuses. At least in the Philippines. =) Kguirnela 09:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason balut is sold at night is because it is eaten warm and the nights are "colder" in the Philippines than the day is. At least that was the reason that was explained to me when I was in the northern Philippines. Useight 00:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

it's as legal as it is delicious, son 92.225.196.14 (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Balut & beer

"Their high protein content is complementary to the consumption of beer. [citation needed]"

It is usually eaten as "pulutan." (see Cuisine of the Philippines)

Pulutan is a word which means "finger food". Though at times eaten with a fork, Pulutan is served as an appetizer or as a snack accompanied with liquor or non-alcoholic beverages.

This being said, im taking off the citation mark. (Unless theres another reason why its there) Jak722 08:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the reason is because someone needs to explain how "high protein content" is "complementary" to "consumption of beer". Are we simply talking about the common practice of eating snacks with beer? In which case I'm not sure that "high protein content" has to do with anything at all. It would seem more sensible to simply say something like "Balut is often served as a snack accompanied by beer", so that there is no need to explain "complementary" or explain the connection to "high protein content". 24.19.184.243 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing there are no comments so far, I'm going to change the sentence to something alone the lines of "Baluts are often served as a snack accompanied by beer". 24.19.184.243 04:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's bullshit. Everything is complementary to the consumption of beer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.206.128 (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Balot

uhh isn't it "traditionally" pronounced Balot? BAHH-LOT not BAHH-LUT? Coojah 08:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Balot is the Filipino word which means 'to wrap' or 'wrapped'. Balut refers to the duck eggs. A play on words, I guess. Kguirnela 09:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the street vendors hawk them by calling out BAHH-LUU-OT, which seems like a compromise. Also, the more provincial pronunciation of words will often contain more of a 'u' sound than an 'o'. RDSwires (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Here in Mindanao we do call it Balot and pronounced as such (unlike the Tagalog Balut), though yeah, hawkers tend to stretch out the O/U sound. Paradoxically, while Tagalogs call the undeveloped one Penoy, we call it Pinoy here (pronounced exactly like the slang contraction of Pilipino).--Astepintooblivion (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, Kguirnela, depends on where the accent is placed. Bálot (Baa-lot)means 'wrapping, to wrap, cover, to pack' while Balót (Bal-lot) is the same as Balút (Bal-loot). Chalk it up to the original filipino languages having only 3 vowels, I guess (a, e/i, and o/u).--Astepintooblivion (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

link 2 utube

should link to different video. right now article links to a fear factor video. Balut is a delicacy and should be portrayed as such. not a fear-factor gross-out food. a DELICACY.

Maybe it shouldn't be a fucking disgusting dead foetus and it would be regarded as such.

Delicacy is jsut a word used to make disgusting things seem more desireable. It's not like balut is exactly difficult to procure or anything, like truffles or saffron are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.167.186 (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thailand

I have seen the Thai version; which is now getting quite hard to procure. When the chicken shell is broken it is green in colour. The Thais serve it (when I've seen it) as a bar snack with beer. They call it Khai khaow or so it sounds to my European ear. Perhaps this should be added to the article.BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Often trigger screaming

The eating of a Balut can often trigger off a fit of screaming, one notable example of this was survivor contestant Denise, Screamed, then didn't even finish it, she was subsequently sick.

This is out of context, and doesn't read very well. The event described may be rewritten and moved to the "In popular media" section. However, the "often trigger off a fit of screaming" claim should be deleted. Fireartist (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Eating a duck embryo is unethical, just like a lot of Asian culinary habits. EWW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.76.70 (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That's retarded. By extension, eating a born animal would be even more unethical since the animal would have a developed brain that can feel pain when it is slaughtered. These embryos do not. Or do you mean the younger the animal, the more unethical it is to eat it? In that case, eating regular eggs should doom us all to hell. I think what you were really trying to say was "Eating a duck embryo is weird, gross and alien to me, merely because it's not common in my culture." Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow this is...disgusting...o_O ResMar 23:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

We should be careful. Does it developed a brain or nervous system already? Do you agree the boiling pain is not worth the taste? Some farms offered eggs with dead embryoes and if it is not dead long the hygiene problem is not much. And we have unfementalited eggs and chicken killed less painful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjueh8259 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously needs inline citations

Ebaychatter0 (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Boiled "alive"?

I've removed the word "alive" from the phrase "boiled alive" in the first paragraph. Using "alive" sounds sensationalist, as if the editor who originally placed the word there (who was anonymous, by the way) did so only to provoke debate over the cruelty of the practice, or highlight the fact that people are boiling a "living" creature. Let's not turn this culinary article into a debate about duck abortion! 172.141.180.67 (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So just to avoid controversy you changed the phrasing of an accurate term? They are in fact boiled alive. What purpose does sugar coating that serve? Western culture eats eggs. Western culture eats ducks. Only a moron would have a MORAL problem with this. Wikipedia shouldn't be catering to the morons. 207.154.101.184 (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It is sensationalist. I don't exactly hear people saying they 'boiled a baby chicken alive' or 'pureed a living embryo into an omelette' when they're preparing 'normal' chicken eggs.--Astepintooblivion (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Normally, eggs aren't fertilized, AFAIK. Or at least not developed. I agree that the wording is sensationalist, though.--Cyberman TM (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's utter rubbish to describe the word "alive" as sensationalist. It is an entirely accurate and scientifically correct term for an embryo. It is alive and not dead. Since the only objection to it is that it "sounds provocative" (which is not a legitimate reason to remove a fact), I've put the word back in. --Hibernian (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the crux of the abortion debate, at least in the United States. To deign to provide an answer whether an embryo is alive or not is not NPOV. That word has no place in this article.65.175.234.67 (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That's totally incorrect on several counts. First of all, I highly doubt that it is ever at question whether a human embryo is alive, of course it's alive (how else would you possibly describe it?), but that's a totally different question as to whether it has Human rights (which is actually the crux of the abortion debate). In this context, the word "alive" is referring to the scientific fact that it "possesses life", it has no moral judgment as to the rights of the lifeform. It is not NPOV, it is a very straightforward scientific fact. --Hibernian (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Putting the NPOV tag on this article, because all traces of this opinion have been scrubbed from the article. 180.189.162.58 (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree here with the NPOV, show reliable sources that this is a controversy or that they are boiled "alive"? Otherwise the NPOV gets removed... It's hardy a dispute since this hasn't even been discussed in nearly a year... — raekyt 00:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether alive or not, "fertilized duck embryo" makes no sense. Eggs are fertilized, and embryos develop from them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.30.69 (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Magnetic resonance imaging

The existence, age, and size of the fetus are determined using the ancient Chinese science-art of magnetic resonance imaging.

Citation? Street sellers certainly don't use MRI machines (see Magnetic resonance imaging) Fireartist (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

They use a lightbulb, FYI. I am not going to put the fact into the article however, to someone in the know, shining a light through the egg can give a pretty accurate idea of the developmental stage of the foetus. Oh my gosh, it's a S N A I S Y ! ^{What's a Snaisy?} 18:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Obvious joke is... really obvious. Though it would have been funnier if it DID say shining a light through it. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Animal rights concerns - notice

I have removed this notice. The notice referred to the talk page. The talk page does not contain any discussion on that matter - apart from the discussion on "alive" cooking. As such I think if there are documented animal rights concerns, a notable campaign against Balut or whatever then such information should be added, but a blanket notice without further info is inappropriate - unless we want to add it to every single food related page. Refdoc (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)