Mildly Interesting

21331 readers

222 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

649

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by ickplant@lemmy.world to c/mildlyinteresting@lemmy.world

73 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 29 points 2 months ago (9 children)

If I had to guess it'd be the ability for oxygen to diffuse through the shell and reach the embryo?

[–] dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 42 points 2 months ago (8 children)

I got curious and your assumption is correct for one of the limiting factors.

Here is what I found:

The shell must be strong enough to support the egg’s weight and protect the embryo, but thin enough for the chick to break through when hatching.
As size increases, the weight grows cubically (volume), but shell strength only increases quadratically (surface area), so there’s a point where the shell would have to be too thick to hatch from.
The distance from the shell to the center increases.
Oxygen diffusion becomes inefficient, and the embryo could suffocate.
Larger eggs are harder to keep at a uniform temperature.
Birds incubating the eggs would need to generate and distribute more heat, which is physically demanding.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I never even considered that but it makes total sense. Thanks for the great post.

[–] dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 months ago

No problem. I get curious myself so figure it nice to share with people that don’t tell me they’re not interested in useless facts.

load more comments (6 replies)