Eggs US fell to 1.80 USD/Dozen on September 22, 2025, down 3.72% from the previous day. Over the past month, Eggs US's price has fallen 16.92%, and is down 21.50% compared to the same time last year, according to trading on a contract for difference (CFD) that tracks the benchmark market for this commodity. This dataset includes a chart with historical data for Eggs US.

Large white, Grade A chicken eggs, sold in a carton of a dozen. Includes organic, non-organic, cage free, free range, and traditional."

Eggs CH fell to 3,003 CNY/T on September 22, 2025, down 1.15% from the previous day. Over the past month, Eggs CH's price has risen 1.62%, but it is still 27.16% lower than a year ago, according to trading on a contract for difference (CFD) that tracks the benchmark market for this commodity. This dataset includes a chart with historical data for Eggs CH.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset illustrates the median household income in Egg Harbor, spanning the years from 2010 to 2021, with all figures adjusted to 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars. Based on the latest 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates from the American Community Survey, it displays how income varied over the last decade. The dataset can be utilized to gain insights into median household income trends and explore income variations.

Key observations:

From 2010 to 2021, the median household income for Egg Harbor increased by $14,167 (21.18%), as per the American Community Survey estimates. In comparison, median household income for the United States increased by $4,559 (6.51%) between 2010 and 2021.

Analyzing the trend in median household income between the years 2010 and 2021, spanning 11 annual cycles, we observed that median household income, when adjusted for 2022 inflation using the Consumer Price Index retroactive series (R-CPI-U-RS), experienced growth year by year for 6 years and declined for 5 years.

https://i.neilsberg.com/ch/egg-harbor-wi-median-household-income-trend.jpeg" alt="Egg Harbor, WI median household income trend (2010-2021, in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars)">

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates. All incomes have been adjusting for inflation and are presented in 2022-inflation-adjusted dollars.

Years for which data is available:

• 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column presents the data year from 2010 to 2021
• Median Household Income: Median household income, in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific year
• YOY Change($): Change in median household income between the current and the previous year, in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars
• YOY Change(%): Percent change in median household income between current and the previous year

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Egg Harbor median household income. You can refer the same here

Monthly average retail prices for selected products, for Canada and provinces. Prices are presented for the current month and the previous four months. Prices are based on transaction data from Canadian retailers, and are presented in Canadian current dollars.

Wolbachia is a widespread endosymbiotic bacteria with diverse phenotypic effects on its insect hosts, ranging from parasitic to mutualistic. Wolbachia also commonly infects social insects, where it faces unique challenges associated with its hosts’ caste-based reproductive division of labor and colony living. Here we dissect the benefits and costs of Wolbachia infection on life-history traits of the invasive pharaoh ant, Monomorium pharaonis. Pharaoh ants are relatively short-lived and show natural variation in Wolbachia infection between colonies, thereby making them an ideal model system for this study. We quantified effects on the lifespan of queen and worker castes, the egg-laying rate of queens across queen lifespan, and the metabolic rates of whole colonies and colony members. Newly-infected queens laid more eggs than uninfected queens but had similar metabolic rates and lifespans. Surprisingly, infected workers outlived uninfected workers. At the colony level, infected colonies w..., , , ## Wolbachia-infected pharaoh ant colonies have higher egg production, metabolic rate, and worker survival

Reference Information

This is the README file for the dataset associated with the paper "Wolbachia-infected pharaoh ant colonies have higher egg production, metabolic rate, and worker survival". This file uses Markdown syntax and has a .md extension

General details of this README

• File name: README(.md)
• Author(s): Sachin Suresh
• Contributors(s): Timothy A Linksvayer
• Date created: 01/30/2023 (mm/dd/yyyy)
• Date modified: 09/10/2023 (mm/dd/yyyy)

Dataset Version and Release History

• Version number: 2.0.0
• Date: 09/10/2023 (mm/dd/yyyy)
• Identifier: DOI: 10.5061/dryad.0zpc8672b

Dataset Attribution and Usage

• Dataset Title: Data for the manuscript '*Wolbachia*-infected pharaoh ant colonies have higher egg production, metabolic rate, and worker survival'
• Dataset collection and contribution: Rohi...

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Egg Harbor population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of Egg Harbor across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2023, the population of Egg Harbor was 371, a 2.20% increase year-by-year from 2022. Previously, in 2022, Egg Harbor population was 363, an increase of 0.28% compared to a population of 362 in 2021. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2023, population of Egg Harbor increased by 115. In this period, the peak population was 371 in the year 2023. The numbers suggest that the population has not reached its peak yet and is showing a trend of further growth. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2023

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2023)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the Egg Harbor is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in Egg Harbor population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Egg Harbor Population by Year. You can refer the same here

We include one dataset with demographic data for birds, called RCW_demo_data. Each row in this csv file represents an individual x year combination, and columns include information about individual and territory characteristics in that year, as well as various vital rates. For reproductive vital rates, we include these rates only for female breeders. Thus, reproductive vital rates such as “successfirstnest” will be NA (indicating missing data) for all males and for female non-breeders. Each row includes a climate reference number (“clim.group”) that allows the demographic data to be matched with the climate data in the climate files (see below for more description about these climate data). Below we list each column individually.

Year: year in which data were collected

Surtonext: did this individual survive to the next breeding season (1) or not (0)?

Nohelp: how many helpers were present in this territory?

Firstnestattempt_bin: did this breeding female initiate a nest in that year’s breeding season? 1 indicates yes, 0 indicates no.

Morenestattempt_bin: did this breeding female initiate more than one nest in that years breeding season? 1 indicates yes, 0 no.

Fledgedfirstnest: how many fledged from the first nest.

Fledgedlaternest: how many fledged from any later nests.

Eggsfirstattempt: how many eggs in the first nest.

Eggslaterattempt: how many eggs in the first nest.

Clim.group: a grouping variable that matches the clim.group variable in the climate datasets. Note that the demographic data contains a space, the climate datasets a period, but SH 146 is the same climate grouping as SH.146.

Site: one of SH, EG, or CL, representing Sandhills, Eglin, or Camp Lejeune

Numericage: age of the bird

Binned status: one of Breeder, Helper or Floater (B, H, or F).

Sex: F or M

Numericmalemateage: age of the male breeder which which a female bred. Only recorde for breeding females.

Successfirstnest_bin: was the first nest successful? 1 indicates yes, 0 no.

Frsurvivingfirst: what fraction of eggs survived to fledging from the first nest?Successmorenest_bin: were any later (i.e., 2nd or later) nests successful? 1 indicates yes, 0 no.

Frsurvivinglater: what fraction of eggs survived to fledging from all later nests?

We have included five datasets corresponding to the five climate variables. The name of the csv file indicates the climate variable that the dataset contains. Each dataset contains information on the date, the climate group (clim.grp, corresponds to the climate groups in the demographic dataset), and the value of the climate signal for that date. Units are indicated in the main text for this paper.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Egg Harbor City population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of Egg Harbor City across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2023, the population of Egg Harbor City was 4,385, a 0.16% decrease year-by-year from 2022. Previously, in 2022, Egg Harbor City population was 4,392, an increase of 0.11% compared to a population of 4,387 in 2021. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2023, population of Egg Harbor City decreased by 102. In this period, the peak population was 4,487 in the year 2000. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2023

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2023)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the Egg Harbor City is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in Egg Harbor City population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Egg Harbor City Population by Year. You can refer the same here

Sri Lanka Retail Price: Average: Colombo: Egg: Red data was reported at 17.630 LKR/Each in Nov 2018. This records an increase from the previous number of 15.230 LKR/Each for Oct 2018. Sri Lanka Retail Price: Average: Colombo: Egg: Red data is updated monthly, averaging 12.220 LKR/Each from Jan 2004 (Median) to Nov 2018, with 179 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 19.700 LKR/Each in Aug 2018 and a record low of 3.920 LKR/Each in Mar 2004. Sri Lanka Retail Price: Average: Colombo: Egg: Red data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Department of Census and Statistics. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Sri Lanka – Table LK.P007: Retail Price: By Commodity: Colombo City (Period Average).

Defences of hosts against brood parasitic cuckoos include detection and ejection of cuckoo eggs from the nest. Ejection behaviour often involves puncturing the cuckoo egg, which is predicted to drive the evolution of thicker eggshells in cuckoos that parasitise such hosts. Here we test this prediction in four Australian cuckoo species and their hosts, using Hall-effect magnetic-inference to directly estimate eggshell thickness in parasitised clutches. In Australia, hosts that build cup-shaped nests are generally adept at ejecting cuckoo eggs, whereas hosts that build dome-shaped nests mostly accept foreign eggs. We analysed two datasets: a small sample of hosts with known egg ejection rates and a broader sample of hosts where egg ejection behaviour was inferred based on nest type (dome or cup). Contrary to predictions, cuckoos that exploit dome-nesting hosts (acceptor hosts) had significantly thicker eggshells relative to their hosts than cuckoos that exploit cup-nesting hosts (ejector hosts). No difference in eggshell thicknesses was observed in the smaller sample of hosts with known egg ejection rates, probably due to lack of power. Overall cuckoo eggshell thickness did not deviate from the expected avian relationship between eggshell thickness and egg length estimated from 74 bird species. Our results do not support the hypothesis that thicker eggshells have evolved in response to host ejection behaviour in Australian cuckoos, but are consistent with the hypothesis that thicker eggshells have evolved to reduce the risk of breakage when eggs are dropped into dome nests. Methods Cuckoo and host species. The parasitic cuckoo species selected for use in this study were chosen based on previous knowledge of their host selection and the egg ejection behaviour of those hosts. We selected four Australian cuckoo species based on the known egg ejection rates of their primary hosts from our earlier studies. Two congeneric species, Horsfield’s bronze-cuckoos (Chalcites basalis) and shining bronze-cuckoos (C. lucidus), exploit hosts that build dome-shaped nests in which detection of foreign eggs is constrained by poor visibility in the dark interior. Hosts of these two cuckoo species rarely eject either naturally-laid cuckoo eggs or experimental, non-mimetic plastic model eggs, of similar size to their own (Table 1). The two other cuckoo species in the study, the pallid cuckoo (Cuculus pallidus) and the Pacific koel (Eudynamis orientalis), exploit hosts that build cup-shaped nests with good visibility, and these hosts routinely eject both naturally-laid cuckoo eggs and experimental, non-mimetic model eggs (Table 1). In addition to their primary hosts included in this analysis, these cuckoos also exploit several secondary hosts whose egg ejection behaviour is unknown. However, previous analyses indicate that there is a strong association between visibility inside the nest and egg ejection behaviour; hosts that build dome-shaped nests tend to accept foreign eggs (100% of Australian hosts [N = 6] ejected ≤ 25% of foreign eggs), whereas hosts that build cup-shaped nests tend to eject foreign eggs (75% of hosts ejected > 25% of foreign eggs, [N = 8]). Therefore, we conducted a second set of analyses that included both primary and secondary hosts of these cuckoos (Table 1), where egg ejection behaviour was inferred based on nest type for the secondary hosts. Eggshell measurements. All eggshells used in this study were sourced from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Australian National Wildlife Collection (ANWC) oology research collection (Supplementary data file 1). All eggs had been prepared at the time of collection by drilling a small hole in the shell, through which the egg contents were blown and removed. The eggshells were then washed and stored dry. Collector’s notes and consistently small blow-hole diameters indicate that eggs were sampled early in development and were unlikely to be subject to significant eggshell thinning during development (Supplementary data file 1). The availability of parasitised clutches in the ANWC collection dictated which host species were included and the sample size for this study (Table 1; Supplementary data file 1). Suitable cuckoo-host clutches contained at least one intact host and one cuckoo egg, both identified to the species level. We used a precision industrial wall-thickness measuring tool to directly measure eggshell thickness via Hall-effect magnetic-inference, in a similar approach to Peterson et al. However, unlike this previous study we did not cut or damage the eggshell to take measurements. Specifically, we used the ElectroPhysik MiniTest FH7200 gauge and FH4 magnetic probe, with a 1.5 mm diameter steel ball which was inserted inside the empty eggshell, through the existing blow-hole in the specimen (SI 2.0). Thus, all eggs included in the study necessarily had a blowhole diameter > 1.5 mm. This probe and steel ball combination measures thicknesses up to 2 mm, with an accuracy of Å} 3 μm + 1% of the reading (Check Line., Germany). Thickness data were collected at a rate of 10 measurements per second. We did not place the steel probe in direct contact with the egg. Instead, we inserted a 0.73 mm sheet of plastic (cellulose acetate) in between the probe and the egg to minimise risk of damage (hereafter referred to as the ‘protector’). Eggshell thickness data were collected at two regions on each egg—the apex (the most conical end opposite the air sac) and the meridian (the circumference around the widest part of the egg). Manual handling of the egg specimens during thickness estimation is described in detail in Supplementary Information Sect. 2.0 and Fig. S1. Briefly, we inserted the steel ball through the blow hole and rolled the ball to the apex of the egg. We always approached the magnetic probe (and protector) apex-first because this is the strongest part of the egg. Apex thickness was recorded for five seconds by leaving the egg stationary and untouched on the probe (Fig. S1;Video Supplement 1). We then rolled the ball until it was positioned adjacent to the side blow-hole and rotated the egg slowly, to record the meridian thickness (Fig. S1; Video Supplement 2). The steel ball was removed by rolling it back through the blow-hole, whilst still in contact with the probe (Video Supplement 3). Preliminary method optimisation using 60 unregistered eggs indicated that the risk of breaking an egg during this manual handling was very low if specimens had no pre-existing physical damage (cracks, chips, hairline fractures determined via illuminating the egg with a cold-light source) and weighed > 0.05 g (Fig. S2). No registered collection items sustained damage in this study. All data were inspected and exported following the manufacturer’s protocols in the software package MSoft 7 Basic (Check Line., Germany). The protector thickness was subtracted from the raw gauge readings to obtain a measurement of eggshell thickness (SI 2.0). Mean thickness (μm) was calculated for both apex and meridian measurements of each egg after removing outliers (classified as data points lying outside 1.5X the interquartile range). Mass (g), length (mm) and breadth (mm) were also measured for each egg. Length and breadth measurements were calculated from a 2D photograph of each egg, following Attard et al. Mass was measured using an electronic balance to the nearest 0.001 g (CT-250 On Balance Digital Scale). Repeatability Analysis. The repeatability of our Hall-effect magnetic-inference methodology with the ElectroPhysik probe was investigated by conducting replicate thickness measurements (N = 10) for an additional 10 unregistered eggs. Repeatability was calculated using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), in the R package irr (SI 4.0). Significance was determined where p < 0.05. Comparative analysis of avian and cuckoo eggshell thickness. Previous studies indicate that eggshell thickness is positively correlated with egg size; larger eggs have thicker shells77. To investigate whether cuckoo eggshell thickness deviates from this general relationship, we calculated the mean eggshell thickness in a total of 78 species, comprising 12 avian orders and 34 families (total N = 3134 eggs) (Table 2). Our analysis included previously published data for 12 species. We used a phylogenetic generalised least squares regression (PGLS) in the R package caper, and estimated the relationship between eggshell length and two measures of thickness (apex and meridian). To control for phylogenetic relatedness, we used a maximum clade credibility (MCC) tree based on 100 trees downloaded from birdtree.org. The MCC tree, which is the tree with the maximum product of the posterior clade probabilities, was obtained using the R package phangorn. We extracted both phylogenetic residuals (phylogenetically independent) and residuals obtained from the phylogenetic regression line, and visually evaluated whether these residuals from cuckoo species were extreme values (e.g., were greater than expected by their size and phylogenetic position). We also used a linear regression of egg length versus mean eggshell thickness for 74 non-brood parasitic avians using the package lm in R v. 3.6.0. Statistical analysis. The distribution of raw and normalised eggshell thickness in cuckoos and their hosts was plotted and visually inspected in ggplot2 (Figs. S3 and Fig. 2). Within a species, outliers in the distribution of mean thicknesses (as defined above) were removed. To account for inter-specific differences in egg size (which is correlated with eggshell thickness) ‘normalised thickness’ was calculated for each sample by dividing the eggshell thickness by egg length. This approach is expected to successfully normalise the data because egg length explains a large proportion of the inter-species variation in eggshell thickness (Fig. 3). We tested for successful

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Little Egg Harbor township population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of Little Egg Harbor township across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2023, the population of Little Egg Harbor township was 21,483, a 0.68% increase year-by-year from 2022. Previously, in 2022, Little Egg Harbor township population was 21,337, an increase of 0.87% compared to a population of 21,152 in 2021. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2023, population of Little Egg Harbor township increased by 5,339. In this period, the peak population was 21,722 in the year 2019. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2023

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2023)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the Little Egg Harbor township is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in Little Egg Harbor township population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Little Egg Harbor township Population by Year. You can refer the same here