Jump to content

Talk:Castoreum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How is this harvested?

[edit]

There is no mention or reference pointer to explain the methods by which castoreum is harvested from the beavers, or whether beavers are farmed similar to minks or other animals. How is it produced and processed? How does the castoreum get from the beaver's behind into the foods we eat? ( Above unsigned comment was by 74.47.117.54 )

I don't have a reference, but friends who have been in the trapping business tell me the glands are simply cut out and sold separately from the fur. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This reference has some details in the description on page 276. Keep in mind that the highest stated use rate is less than 0.01%, whereas artificial vanilla is above 0.14% (Skoot13 (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Comment

[edit]

The first reference of this article is blatant advertising, linking to a website that sells the defined entry Castoreum as a product. It is in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmyfresno (talk • contribs)

Castor sacs redirect here

[edit]

Not sure this is reasonable. --Filll (talk | wpc) 16:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced in a web comic

[edit]

This page was referenced today in a fairly popular webcomic - | The Devil's Panties. I'd suggest keeping an eye out for vandalism. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Used in Artificial Vanilla Flavoring?

[edit]

I am removing this bit about vanilla flavoring since the book used as a citation for that says "Castoreum adds unusual notes to raspberry and strawberry..." with no mention of any use for vanilla at all. Highnumber (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it says "particularly vanilla" elsewhere just not on the cited page. I have restored the word with a more explicit citation. WTucker (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic chat

Who Figured This Out?

Does anyone here know who found out that a beaver's butthole tastes like raspberry? I mean, who tasted it? Did somebody literally stick their finger up an anus and lick it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrot325 (talk • contribs) 15:31, July 21, 2014‎

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Production

[edit]

"The annual industry consumption is very low, around 300 pounds" We have figures of

Product Weight
Castoreum 43.33 pounds (19.65 kg)
Castoreum extract 96.67 pounds (43.85 kg)
Castoreum liquid 151.67 pounds (68.80 kg)

but it's not clear without access to the entire volume, whether these are for the US or world, and whether they are the total production or just the food industry production, or indeed if one figure subsumes another.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Castoreum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 03:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was a Japanese advertising site, certainly not WP:RS, and essentially useless on the english Wikipedia. Unless someone comes forward with some reason to not do so, I'll delete the citation in the next couple of days. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of in-joke?

[edit]

Castoreum is an interesting and historically relevant animal biproduct, and thus clearly meets the "Encyclopedic" needs of a page. I support the existence of this page.

I'm wondering if it's the (no pun intended) butt-end of a joke or something. It's got sixteen redirects and dozens of pages that link here, and I'm not sure why. It's starting to rival terms like "milk" and "protein" for its structural/mathematical standing in wikipedia, and that seem counterintuitive, or perhaps actually "wrong".

There are, for instance, a plethora of compounds in herbal teas, including phenolics. But the page "phenolic" does not have a back-link to herbal teas. In many cases, however, pages DO have back-links to castoreum, which is arguably less informative.

I'm wondering if someone hasn't just read a book with a list of materials found in castoreum and just put a back-link in each entry. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to have a list of compounds in THIS page and have outward-bound links instead, just to avoid cluttering pages as diverse as Salicin, Cyclohexane-1,2-diol and Vanilla. Yes, there are nominally reasonable arguments for inclusion. I cannot refute that. I'm appealing to the rational mind here... those compounds are found in THOUSANDS of named bio-mixtures, and it is impractical to link back to each (or even a small sample) of them.

Scalability does matter on wikipedia - I propose we trim the back-links substantially.

Riventree (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Castoreum. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading photograph?

[edit]

How are the masses in the image appearing alongside the lede illustrative of an exudate (liquid matter), that is the subject to the article? Why is there no clarifying text, to indicate these are the glands, or other such, and not the title subject at all? The same concern is expressed regarding the third image, which again is not as labeled, but is instead a lyophilisate or dried sample. Is the point to add and label images, to confuse? 98.193.55.132 (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In food

[edit]

The "In food" section is a bit weird. It says "The annual industry consumption"... What industry? What is "the industry" referring to?

The paragraph actually made sense before this deletion. Is that deletion really valid? 85.76.47.225 (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't understand why vanillin is mentioned in the article at all. There's no context. Grassynoel (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Castoreum&oldid=1245630457"