Motoring10 mins ago
why don't eggs from the fridge hatch?
may seem a silly question but my young daughter wants to know why it is that eggs from the fridge don't hatch in to chickens.
she thinks that it can't be the cold alone that stops this happening as the eggs in shops are not sold from fridges.
she thinks that it can't be the cold alone that stops this happening as the eggs in shops are not sold from fridges.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gumboil. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Bobclean is right, but if any fertilised egg, once laid, falls below roughly human body temperature it will fail to hatch. This is why it's very important not to disturb nesting birds, in case they're scared away from the eggs for too long. This link tells you about it.
Hang on, hang on.
bobclean says that the eggs will not hatch if they have not been fertilised.
heathfield says they will not hatch if they are not incubated for the correct length of time at the correct temperature.
Are you telling me that the eggs I buy in the supermarket may well have been fertilised but will not hatch because they have been kept cold?
bobclean says that the eggs will not hatch if they have not been fertilised.
heathfield says they will not hatch if they are not incubated for the correct length of time at the correct temperature.
Are you telling me that the eggs I buy in the supermarket may well have been fertilised but will not hatch because they have been kept cold?
undercovers:
Let me go through what you said step-by-step.
I follow what you say in your first sentence and I can accept that eggs I buy are from what are effectively spinster female chickens.
In your second sentence you say that if the bird does mate and reproduce, the egg must be kept warm for the offspring to develop inside.
Now no matter which way I look at it, the words "mate" and "reproduce" that you used must mean that fertilisation has taken place because, as far as I know, unless an organism reproduces asexually, fertilisation is part of reproduction.
Logically then using your statement as a basis, it would seem that fertilisation may well have taken place, but the egg has been kept too cold to hatch.
Isn't this in agreement with what I said in my last post?
Let me go through what you said step-by-step.
I follow what you say in your first sentence and I can accept that eggs I buy are from what are effectively spinster female chickens.
In your second sentence you say that if the bird does mate and reproduce, the egg must be kept warm for the offspring to develop inside.
Now no matter which way I look at it, the words "mate" and "reproduce" that you used must mean that fertilisation has taken place because, as far as I know, unless an organism reproduces asexually, fertilisation is part of reproduction.
Logically then using your statement as a basis, it would seem that fertilisation may well have taken place, but the egg has been kept too cold to hatch.
Isn't this in agreement with what I said in my last post?
gumboil my last post is a reply to you not cleanbob - me and bob must have posted at the same time...
i think this subject has been covered and you have now recieved your answer about where baby chickens come from - i can't see any supplimentary question in your last post that you shouldn't already be able to answer for yourself.
good luck and all the best
Undercovers
undercovers:
I was perfectly well aware that your last answer was a reply to me and not bobclean. I cannot see how you could have thought otherwise. (why cleanob?)
It will be evident to other readers of this thread that at no point did I ask where baby chickens came from - I asked why the eggs in my fridge did not hatch into chickens. I did not include any supplementary question in my last post as it was unwarranted - I merely asked for a clarification and confirmation of information that you and you alone supplied.
It is clear that you were either unable to provide this information due to lack of knowledge or declined to provide this information and reasoning for reasons unknown. You then decided to terminate your input to the thread. Clearly, I will have to look elsewhere for a explanation of this phenomenon.
heathfield:
Thank you for expanding on the information you provided earlier. It has cleared up the confusion and provided the answer required.
I was perfectly well aware that your last answer was a reply to me and not bobclean. I cannot see how you could have thought otherwise. (why cleanob?)
It will be evident to other readers of this thread that at no point did I ask where baby chickens came from - I asked why the eggs in my fridge did not hatch into chickens. I did not include any supplementary question in my last post as it was unwarranted - I merely asked for a clarification and confirmation of information that you and you alone supplied.
It is clear that you were either unable to provide this information due to lack of knowledge or declined to provide this information and reasoning for reasons unknown. You then decided to terminate your input to the thread. Clearly, I will have to look elsewhere for a explanation of this phenomenon.
heathfield:
Thank you for expanding on the information you provided earlier. It has cleared up the confusion and provided the answer required.
gumboil - why are you so angry?
These people have given you helpful and clear answers to your question, plus some interesting additional information.
Just because you didn't understand what they were saying (?) doesnt mean you should be rude. They were going out of their way to help you answer your question for your daughter.
I don't know why everyone is being so touchy and defensive this weekend!
gumboil - you have an answer to your question, my previous comments have been discussed and confirmed by others, i don't understand why you would like me to confirm them to you myself but if it helps you i'm happy to do it...
what has been said previously is twofold
1) The eggs you buy at the shop have not been fertilized and thus have zero chance of development into a chicken.
2) As an interesting aside, eggs in general must be kept warm in order to develop - you do not get these in the shops though.
hope this has helped, in the future maybe just try and relax a little when using the site - generally we are a helpful and friendly bunch and will try and give you with answers as clearly as possible - if further explanation is needed most are happy to elaborate and discuss, however if the answer still isn�t in the form you really wanted please don�t get tetchy with others who are after all only trying to help you.
all the best undercovers
I'm new here but I'd like to try to give an impartial view of this in the light of aka estie's comments.
I really don't think that gumboil has been angry or rude at all in his/her postings. Whichever way you look at it, contradictory statements have been made by other posters that needed clearing up.
heathfield came back and clarified what he had said earlier and none of the posters were unanimous in their views or the information they provided. To my mind, its little wonder that gumboil needed further clarification.
Surely gumboil was perfectly correct to point out to undercovers that he never asked where chickens came from? I cannot find the question in the postings. Can you?
Gumboil based his/her last question to undercovers on the statement that undercovers made in his/her last posting and it seems, only wished to follow the logic through with undercovers to try to clarify what undercovers had said. Whichever way you look at it, undercovers decided not to answer which surely was not very helpful to gumboil.
It certainly does not look to me that gumboil was being antagonistic or angry when he asked the final question in his penultimate post.
No, I have to disagree that the replies were "helpful and clear". If all the postings had provided similar information that did not generate further questions it would have been a different story and this obfuscation would never have arisen.
Could someone point out where in these postings someone provided an unequivocal and pertinent answer to the questions raised by gumboil in the 19.29 posting? I cannot find a reply. Can you? The questions, just like the original, were simple enough.
I really don't think that gumboil has been angry or rude at all in his/her postings. Whichever way you look at it, contradictory statements have been made by other posters that needed clearing up.
heathfield came back and clarified what he had said earlier and none of the posters were unanimous in their views or the information they provided. To my mind, its little wonder that gumboil needed further clarification.
Surely gumboil was perfectly correct to point out to undercovers that he never asked where chickens came from? I cannot find the question in the postings. Can you?
Gumboil based his/her last question to undercovers on the statement that undercovers made in his/her last posting and it seems, only wished to follow the logic through with undercovers to try to clarify what undercovers had said. Whichever way you look at it, undercovers decided not to answer which surely was not very helpful to gumboil.
It certainly does not look to me that gumboil was being antagonistic or angry when he asked the final question in his penultimate post.
No, I have to disagree that the replies were "helpful and clear". If all the postings had provided similar information that did not generate further questions it would have been a different story and this obfuscation would never have arisen.
Could someone point out where in these postings someone provided an unequivocal and pertinent answer to the questions raised by gumboil in the 19.29 posting? I cannot find a reply. Can you? The questions, just like the original, were simple enough.
Hi undercovers
Looks like you replied to gumboil just before I got my comments in on what aka estie had said.
It doesn' t look to me that anyone has provided an indisputable answer to gumboil's original question despite your view to the contrary.
I can't agree that gumboil was being tetchy for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
What you mean when you told gumboil about the answer not being "in the form you really wanted" defeats me. What are you implying? What relevance can the "form" of the answer be in the simple enough question?
Isn't it curious how everyone has steered clear of gumboil's 20.52 posting?
Looks like you replied to gumboil just before I got my comments in on what aka estie had said.
It doesn' t look to me that anyone has provided an indisputable answer to gumboil's original question despite your view to the contrary.
I can't agree that gumboil was being tetchy for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
What you mean when you told gumboil about the answer not being "in the form you really wanted" defeats me. What are you implying? What relevance can the "form" of the answer be in the simple enough question?
Isn't it curious how everyone has steered clear of gumboil's 20.52 posting?
Perhaps because you are a newcomer bookend, you don't fully appreciate that this is the very nature of AB.
Bobclean, in fact, fully answered the question in the first reply. There then followed a few (more or less) humourous comments. Heathfield then added an interesting aside. This is pretty normal. When you post a question, other people may also have an interest in the answer, and if additional information is provided it may or may not be of interest to the original poster of the question, but this is a public forum, and other readers may be grateful.
Having received a a concise and accurate reply in the first posting, it does seem to me that gumboil was becoming somewhate agitated for no reason whatsoever.
Bobclean, in fact, fully answered the question in the first reply. There then followed a few (more or less) humourous comments. Heathfield then added an interesting aside. This is pretty normal. When you post a question, other people may also have an interest in the answer, and if additional information is provided it may or may not be of interest to the original poster of the question, but this is a public forum, and other readers may be grateful.
Having received a a concise and accurate reply in the first posting, it does seem to me that gumboil was becoming somewhate agitated for no reason whatsoever.
I agree with undercovers, rojash, and aka estie. To me, the question was clearly answered. Gumboil's reasoning in his 20:52 post is faulty. He fails to see that there are two possible reasons for the failure of an egg to hatch. The first one (unfertilised egg) applied directly to his question. The second one was an aside but is still valid.
rojash:
I appreciate that gumboil's question was indeed answered concisely and correctly in the first posting from bobclean.
All the same, it seems to me that gumboil was after a more detailed explanation than a single sentence. Children have a persistently inquiring mind and I know that the single sentence answer provided by bobclean would not have satisfied the curiosity of my own children - it would only have led to more questions. A laconic answer can be worse to a child than no answer at all.
To use a simple analogy, if a teacher at a junior school provided my daughter or son with laconic answers to questions in the manner that has occurred here, they would not remain in the profession for long.
While I freely accept, that an answer to a high academic standard was not required here, I can't help but feel that the information has been sparse and would only result in further questions from gumboil's daughter - I know that my children would ask me to elaborate.
Surely, it would be wise in this case to work on the basis of "forewarned is forearmed" and be clear on the matter in one's own mind before answering a child. What is wrong in requiring further information on the matter for this purpose? I don't know of any parent that wants to look an idiot in front of their child.
(continued)
I appreciate that gumboil's question was indeed answered concisely and correctly in the first posting from bobclean.
All the same, it seems to me that gumboil was after a more detailed explanation than a single sentence. Children have a persistently inquiring mind and I know that the single sentence answer provided by bobclean would not have satisfied the curiosity of my own children - it would only have led to more questions. A laconic answer can be worse to a child than no answer at all.
To use a simple analogy, if a teacher at a junior school provided my daughter or son with laconic answers to questions in the manner that has occurred here, they would not remain in the profession for long.
While I freely accept, that an answer to a high academic standard was not required here, I can't help but feel that the information has been sparse and would only result in further questions from gumboil's daughter - I know that my children would ask me to elaborate.
Surely, it would be wise in this case to work on the basis of "forewarned is forearmed" and be clear on the matter in one's own mind before answering a child. What is wrong in requiring further information on the matter for this purpose? I don't know of any parent that wants to look an idiot in front of their child.
(continued)
Latest Posts
Crosswords12 mins ago
Body & Soul12 mins ago
Well At Least Sir Kier Is Topping One...
News17 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.