Talk:Butter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured article Butter is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 17, 2006.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 2, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
December 5, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted
August 18, 2008 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Why no mention of 3.27 % trans fat in butter ?[edit]

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)

Wrong conversion[edit]

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)


Missing language[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Density units[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Churning milk misleading?[edit]

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[edit]

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)

McGee citations, numerous[edit]

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)

April Fools' Day[edit]

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)

Link needs updating[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 18:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Ghee jar.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 18:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Typo in Health and Nutrition section[edit]

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)


UK Butter size[edit]

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)

Density of butter[edit]

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)

Remove a few things to lessen redundancy?[edit]

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)

Size and shape of butter packaging[edit]

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)

Woman Making Butter image is NOT of a woman making butter[edit]

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)

size?[edit]

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[edit]

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

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

Vandals[edit]

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)

Butter alternatives[edit]

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)

Conflict of interest / Health advice / Pro-margarine bias[edit]

"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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

YesY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Possibly requires a citation for History[edit]

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2016[edit]

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)

Evaluating Butter Article[edit]

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[edit]

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)

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

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).

Butter is a dairy product containing up to 80% butterfat[edit]

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)

Invalid assumption in:[edit]

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)