U N I K A S S E L V E R S I T Ä T Bogor Agricultural University

Indonesia

Comparison of nutritional quality between cow and goat dairy products: A meta-analysis

Palupi E1,3, Jayanegara A2, Setiawan B1, Sulaeman A1

1Department of Community Nutrition

Faculty of Human Ecology, IPB, Indonesia

2Department of Nutrition and Feed Technology

Faculty of Animal Science, IPB, Indonesia

3Department of Organic Food Quality and Food Culture

Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences

Kassel University, Germany

11.04.12

The 1st Asia Dairy Goat Conference, Malaysia

2/16 Palupi et al 2012: Cow vs goat dairy product

Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia

Kassel University, Germany

Content 1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Aim and objectives

2 Methodology

2.1 Literature search and selection

2.2 Studies coding

2.3 Statistical analysis

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Cow vs goat dairy products

3.2 Suitability of meta-analysis

4 Conclusion

References

Dairy products → all type of milk based products, including milk and other food products made from milk, like yoghurt, cream, cheese, ice cream, etc.

3/16 Palupi et al 2012: Cow vs goat dairy product

Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia

Kassel University, Germany

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Goat milk and undernourished communities

• Harsh climate condition

• Cowmilk-allergenicity and gastrointestinal problems

• Nutritional properties

1.2 Aim and objectives

• Analyse the comparison of nutritional quality between cow and goat dairy products

by summarising the previous studies using the meta-analytic technique

• Out come → an additional scientific reference in the quality of goat dairy products

Sources: Amigo and Fontecha 2011, Haenlein 2004, Silanikove 2000, Morand-Fehr 2005, Park 1994, Ceballos et al

2009a, Haenlein 2004, Ceballos et al 2009b, Silanikove et al 2010, Alferez et al 2006.

1 Introduction 2 Methodology 3 Results and discussion 4 Conclusions

4/16 Palupi et al 2012: Cow vs goat dairy product

Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia

Kassel University, Germany

2 Methodology 2.1 Literature search and selection

Search: EBSCO Information Services (http://search.ebscohost.com/) and

Science Direct (http://www.sciencedirect.com/)

using key words and names of the major authors in the field

Criteria:

• Published in English as full text articles

• Peer-reviewed published journals

• Direct comparison between cow and goat dairy products

• Comparing the nutritional quality including macro- and micro- nutrients

Table 1: Summary of literature search and screening process

1 Introduction 2 Methodology 3 Results and discussion 4 Conclusions

Process Number of selected/eliminated

articles

Number of remaining

articles

Initial literature search +3120 3120

Initial screening -2659 461

Title evaluation -411 50

Abstract evaluation -23 27

Parameter evaluation -10 17

Insufficient data for statistical analysis -2 15

5/16 Palupi et al 2012: Cow vs goat dairy product

Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia

Kassel University, Germany

2 Methodology

1 Introduction 2 Methodology 3 Results and discussion 4 Conclusions

2.2 Studies coding

Moderator variables

→ coding system and initial information

→ place of research (country), genotype of cow, genotype of goat, type of survey,

type of product, sample size of cow’s- and goat’s- group, references

Parameters

• Total solid → g/100g milk

• Protein content → g/100g milk

• Fat content → g/100g milk

• Ash content → g/100g milk

• Fat components:

MUFA, PUFA, ALA, CLA9 (C18:2 c9t11) → g/kg of total FA

Ratio n-3 to n-6 (n-3/n-6)

• Ca content → g/100g milk

6/16 Palupi et al 2012: Cow vs goat dairy product

Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia

Kassel University, Germany

2.2 Studies coding (continued)

Table 2: List of comparison studies used in meta-analysis

1 Introduction 2 Methodology 3 Results and discussion 4 Conclusions

Studies

coding

Expt.

no.

Country Cow

Goat

Place of

sampling Type of product

Additional

variable

Nc Ng References

1 1 Spain Holstein Freisian Granadina

Farm Fresh milk -

30 30 Ceballos et al. 2009

2 2 Spain Mix Mix Basket Fermented products - 34 8 Navarro-Alarcon et al. 2011

3 3 Germany - -

Farm Fresh milk Pasture 8 8 Jahreis et al. 1999

3 4 Germany - -

Farm Fresh milk Indoor 8 8 Jahreis et al. 1999

4 5 Belgia - - Farm Fresh milk Colostrum 2 2 Benemariya et al. 1993

4 6 Belgia - - Farm Fresh milk Mature 19 5 Benemariya et al. 1993

5 7 Cyprus - Damascus Farm Fresh milk - 861 721 Hadjipanayiotou 1995

6 8 Italy - - Farm Fresh milk - 5 5 Blasi et al. 2008

7 9 New Zealand - - Basket Milk infant formula - 2 2 Rutherfurd et al. 2006

8 10 USA Holstein Alpine Farm Fresh milk - 25 25

Park 1992

8 11 USA Jersey Nubian Farm Fresh milk - 25 25

Park 1992

9 12 Turkey Konya Konya Farm Yayik butter - 2 2 Sagdic et al. 2004

10 13 Spain - Andalusian Basket Semi-skimmed

sterilized milk

10 10 Olalla et al. 2009

10 14 Spain - Andalusian Farm and basket Raw goat milk - 10 10 Olalla et al. 2009

11 15 Poland - - Farm Yoghurt - 3 3 Domagala 2009

12 16 Tunisia Cimentale Malti Farm Fresh milk - 2 2 Bornaz et al. 2009

12 17 Tunisia Cimentale Malti Farm Whey - 2 2 Bornaz et al. 2009

13 18 Greece Friesian race Local native Farm Teleme cheese - 3 3 Mallatou and Pappa 2005

14 19 Czech

Republic

Holstein and Czech

Pied

White

Shorthaired

Farm Fresh milk - 30 30 Janstova et al. 2009

15 20 New Zealand - - Basket Whole milk powder - 2 4

Prosser et al. 2008

15 21 New Zealand - - Basket Infant formula - 4 3

Prosser et al. 2008

15 22 New Zealand - - Basket Follow-on formula - 4 3

Prosser et al. 2008

13 references 29 comparisons 9 moderator variables 23 parameters

15 references 22 comparisons 7 moderator variables 10 parameters → mean & SD

7/16 Palupi et al 2012: Cow vs goat dairy product

Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia

Kassel University, Germany

2.3 Statistical analysis

- Effect size as the “Hedges' d” was applied Cow group→ control group (C) Goat group → experimental group (E)

d =( X̄

E− X̄

C)

SJ

(∑i= 1

n

wi d i)

(∑i= 1

n

w i)

Sources: Rosenberg et al. 2000, p. 16ff; Sanchez-Meca and Marin-Martinez 2010, p. 276ff; SPSS 13 2007.

Nfs > 5N+10 - Fail-safe number (N

fs) → Orwin's method

- Precision → 95% of CI (Confidence Interval) = ± 1.96 x sd+

- How large the d? → Cohen's benchmarks 0.2 → small effect size 0.5 → medium effect size 0.8 → large effect size

- Software → MetaWin 2.0

- Additional parameters → Mixed effect model of weighted paired-samples t-test with 95% of CI → ANOVA with Tukeys' honest test using SPSS version 13

- Cumulative effect size (d+)

J = 1−3

(4( NC+ N

E− 2)− 1)

S= √((NE− 1)(s

E)

2+ ( N

C− 1)(s

C)2)

(NE+ N

C− 2)

w i=1

v d

1 Introduction 2 Methodology 3 Results and discussion 4 Conclusions

8/16 Palupi et al 2012: Cow vs goat dairy product

Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia

Kassel University, Germany

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Cow vs goat dairy products (1/4)

Define the “premium” nutritional quality of dairy product

1. Secure the level of some key compounds,

i.e. protein, vit. A, D, E, C, B1, B

2, B

11, B

12, Ca, Zn, Fe, K, essential oil

2. Energy base calculation

3. High omega-3 to omega-6 ratio, close to 1:2

→ reduce risk of heart disease

4. High CLA9 → significant amount → about 140 to 420 mg/d

→ anticarsinogenic, antidiabetic

5. Low proportion of VA relative to CLA9

→ Δ-9 desaturase index = [CLA9]/([CLA9]+[VA])

→ precursor of CLA9

Sources: Kahl et al. 2010, p. 40; Huth et al. 2006, p. 1219; Haug et al. 2007, p. 12; Butler et al. 2009, p. 702; Steijns 2008, p. 426; Drewnowski 2005, p. 721; Chemical book 2010a, 2010b; Barker 2002, p. 2133; Zitterman 2011, p. 1299; Quigley 2011, p. 1016ff; Tome 2002, p. 1991; Jauhiainen and Korpela 2007, p. 825; Pereira et al. 2002, p. 2081.

trans-11 cis- 9

Fig. 1: CLA9

trans-11

Fig. 2: VA

1 Introduction 2 Methodology 3 Results and discussion 4 Conclusions

9/16 Palupi et al 2012: Cow vs goat dairy product

Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia

Kassel University, Germany

Fig. 3: Forest plot of cumulative effect size and 95% CI of some parameters as the prediction for comparing the nutritional quality of cow and goat dairy products

The evidence

3.1 Cow vs goat dairy products (2/4)

1 Introduction 2 Methodology 3 Results and discussion 4 Conclusions

Tend to dairy goat’s group

CLA9 (-1.19R, ±0.98)

ALA (4.95R, ±2.67)

PUFA (1.95R, ±0.83)

Ash content (1.63R, ±0.25)

Total solid (1.66R, ±0.18)

Tend to dairy cow’s group

Fat content (0.98R, ±0.17)

MUFA (-0.07, ±0.66)

Protein content (2.06R, ±0.15)

Ca (0.07, ±0.92)

√ √

√ √

√ √

10/16 Palupi et al 2012: Cow vs goat dairy product

Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia

Kassel University, Germany

Fig. 4: Weighted mean value n-3/n-6

a

b

√

The evidence

3.1 Cow vs goat dairy products (3/4)

1 Introduction 2 Methodology 3 Results and discussion 4 Conclusions

Protein, fat, PUFA, α-LNA, Ca, n-3/n-6

0,097

0,194

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Cow Goat

11/16 Palupi et al 2012: Cow vs goat dairy product

Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia

Kassel University, Germany

Circulating blood

Intestine Adipose fat

tissue Rumen

Feeding SFA UFA

C16:0 & C18:0

Fermentation → C4:0 till C14:0

Biohydrogenation: - Complete: UFA → SFA - Incomplete: C18:2 c9,12 → VA → CLA9<

C4:0 till C14:0 VA CLA9

Udder

C16:0

C4:0 till C10:0

C18:0>> C12:0 C14:0

C18:1>> C16:1 C12:1 C14:1 MUFA

PUFA n-3&n-6 ∆9-desaturase ∆9-desaturase

SFA C4:0 till C18:0

MUFA C12:1 till C18:1

PUFA n-3&n-6

SFA&UFA

CLA9

CLA9>>

CLA9

VA

SFA VA

PUFA n-3&n-6

PUFA n-3&n-6

Fig. 5: Mechanism of milk fat synthesis in ruminant Source: Haug et al. 2007, p. 10

√ √

√

√

Reason behind the evidence

3.1 Cow vs goat dairy products (4/4)

1 Introduction 2 Methodology 3 Results and discussion 4 Conclusions

√

12/16 Palupi et al 2012: Cow vs goat dairy product

Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia

Kassel University, Germany

3.2 Suitability of meta-analysis

Meta analysis → Hedges' d → best choice for comparison study

Advantages:

• May tackle small sample size

• Objective and quantitative

• Repeatability result

Disadvantages:

• Relatively time consuming

• Need advanced statistical ability

• Demand exact value of sample size, mean, and standard deviation

1 Introduction 2 Methodology 3 Results and discussion 4 Conclusions

13/16 Palupi et al 2012: Cow vs goat dairy product

Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia

Kassel University, Germany

4 Conclusions

• Goat dairy products have different nutritional qualities from the cow dairy

products

• The unique nutritional feature of goat dairy products is that it may be

good for supporting human health

• Further identical meta-analysis may be best applicable for analyzing and

summarizing the comparison between cow and goat dairy products

by employing more parameters

1 Introduction 2 Methodology 3 Results and discussion 4 Conclusions

14/16 Palupi et al 2012: Cow vs goat dairy product

Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia

Kassel University, Germany

References (1/2) Alferez, M.J.M., I. Lopez-Aliaga, T. Nestares, J. Diaz-Castro, M. Barrionuevo, P.B. Ros and M.S. Campos, 2006. Dietary

goat milk improves iron bioavailability in rats with induced ferropenic anemia in comparison with cow milk. Int. Dairy J. 16:813-821.

Amigo, L. and J. Fontecha, 2011. Goat milk. Encyclopedia of Dairy Science (Second Edition): 484-493. Ceballos, L.S., M.R.S. Sampelayo, F.G. Extremera and M.R. Osorio, 2009a. Evaluation of the allergenicity of goat milk,

cow milk, and their lactosera in a guinea pig model. J. Dairy Sci. 92:837-846. Ceballos, L.S., E.R. Morales, G. de la T. Adarve, J.D. Castro, L.P. Martinez and M.R.S. Sampelayo, 2009b. Composition

of goat and cow milk produced under similar conditions and analyzed by identical methodology. J. Food Comps. Anal. 22:322-329.

Drewnowski, A., 2005. Concept of a nutritious food: Toward a nutrient density score. The Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 82:721-732. Haenlein, G.F.W., 2004. Goat milk in human nutrition. Small Ruminant Research 51: 155-163. Haug, A., A.T. Hostmark and O.M. Harstad, 2007. Bovine milk in human nutrition – A review. Lipids Health Dis. 6(25):1-

16.Hedges, L.V. and I. Olkin, 1985. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press, London, UK. Huth, P.J., D.B. DiRienzo and G.D. Miller, 2006. Major scientific advances with dairy foods in nutrition and health. Am.

Dairy Sci. Assoc. 86:1207-1221. Morand-Fehr, P., 2005. Recent developments in goat nutrition and application: A review. Small Ruminant Res. 60:25-43. Park, Y.W., 1994. Hypo-allergenic and therapeutic significance of goat milk. Small Ruminant Res. 14:151-159. Rosenberg, M.S., D.C. Adams and J. Gurevitch, 2000. MetaWin: Statistical software for meta-analysis: Version 2.0.

Sinauer Associates, Inc., State University of New York, Iowa State University. Sunderland, Massachusetts. Sanchez-Meca, J. and F. Marin-Martinez, 2010. Meta analysis. International Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd ed., pp.

274-282. Silanikove, N. 2000. The physiologiyal basis of adaptation in goats to harsh environments. Small Ruminant Res. 3th

edition. 35(3): 181 – 193. Silanikove, N., G. Leitner, U. Merin and C.G. Prosser, 2010. Recent advances in exploiting goat’s milk: Quality, safety

and production aspects. Small Ruminant Res. 89:110-124. Steijns, J. M., 2008. Dairy products and health: Focus on their constituents or on the matrix? Int. Dairy J. 18:425-435.

15/16 Palupi et al 2012: Cow vs goat dairy product

Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia

Kassel University, Germany

References (2/2) Navarro-Alarcon M, Cabrera-Vique C, Ruiy-Lopey MD, Olalla M, Artacho R, Gimeney R, Quintana V and Bergillos T.

2011. Lavels of Se, Zn, Mg and Ca in commercial goat and cow milk fermented products, Relationship with their chemical composition and probiotic starter culture. In Food Chemistry 129: 1126-1131.

Jahreis G, Fritsche J, Mickel P, Schone F, Moller U and Steinhart H. 1999. The potential anticarcinogenic conjugated linoleic acid, cis-9, trans-11, C18:2, in milk of different species: cow, goat, ewe, sow, mare, woman. In Nutrition Research 19 (10): 1541-1549.

Benemariya H, Robberecht H and Deelstra H. 1993. Zinc, copper and selenium in milk and organs of cow and goat from Burundi, Africa. In The Science of the Total Environment 128: 83-98.

Hadjipanayiotou M. 1995. Composition of ewe, goat and cow milk and of colostrum of ewes and goats. In Small Ruminats Research 18:255-262.

Blasi F, Montesano D, De Angelis M, Maurizi A, Ventura F, Cossignani L, Simonetti MS and Damiani P. 2008. Results of stereospecific analzsis of triacylglycerol fraction from donkey, cow, ewe, goat and buffalo milk. In Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 21: 1-7.

Rutherfurd SM, Darragh AJ, Hendriks, Prosser CG and Lowry D. 2006. True ileal amino acid digestibility of goat and cow milk infant formulas. In J. Dairy Sci. 89: 2408-2413.

Park YW. 1992. Comparison of buffering components in goat and cow milk. In Small Ruminant Research 8: 75-81. Sagdic O, Donmez M, Demirci M. 2004. Comparison of characteristics and fatty acid profiles of traditional Turkish yayik

butters produced from goats’, ewes’, or cows’ milk. In Food Control 15: 485-490. Olalla M, Ruiz-Lopez MD, Navarro M, Artacho R, Cabrera C, Gimenez R, Rodriguez C and Mingorance R. 2009.

Nitrogen fractions of Andalusian goat milk compared to similar types of commercial milk. In Food Chemistry 113: 835-838.

Bornaz S, Sahli A, Attalah A and Attia H. 2009. Physicochemical characteristic and renneting properties of camel‘s milk: a comparison with goats‘, ewes‘ and cows‘ milks. In Society of Dairy Technology 64 (4): 505-5013.

Mallatou H and Pappa EC. 2005. Comparison of characteristics of teleme cheese made from ewe‘s, goat‘s and cow‘s milk or a mixture of ewe‘s and goat‘s milk. In International Journal of Dairy Technology 58 (3): 158-163.

Janstova B, Navratilova P, Drackova M, Pridalova H and Lenka V. 2009. Impact of heat treatment of the freezing points of cow and goat milk. In ACTA VET. BRNO 78: 679-684.

Prosser CG, McLaren RD, Frost D, Agnew M and Lowry DJ. 2008. Composition of the non-protein fraction of goat whole milk powder and goat milk-based infant and follow-on formulae. In International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 59 (2): 123-133.

Thank you very

much...