Non-Bovine Milk and Milk Products

273 Pages·2016·9.471 MB·English

by  Effie Tsakalidou, Konstantinos Papadimitriou

Dedication
In the memory of Leonidas Louloudis, a constant source of inspiration.
NON-BOVINE MILK
AND MILK PRODUCTS
Edited by
E T
ffiE sakalidou
k P
onsTanTinos aPadimiTriou
AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON
NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS • SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO
Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, UK
525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, USA
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the
Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance
Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher
(other than as may be noted herein).
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden
our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become
necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and
using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or
methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they
have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any
liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence
or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the
material herein.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
ISBN: 978-0-12-803361-6
For information on all Academic Press publications
visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/

Publisher: Nikki Levy
Acquisition Editor: Megan Ball
Editorial Project Manager: Billie Jean Fernandez
Production Project Manager: Lisa Jones
Designer: Mark Rogers
Typeset by TNQ Books and Journals
www.tnq.co.in
List of Contributors
V. Alexandraki Agricultural University of Athens, U. Merin Agricultural Research Organization, Bet
Athens, Greece Dagan, Israel
E. Alichanidis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, G. Moatsou Agricultural University of Athens,
Thessaloniki, Greece Athens, Greece
A. Angelopoulou Agricultural University of Ath- M. Nuñez Instituto Nacional de Investigación y
ens, Athens, Greece Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria, Madrid, Spain
M.P. Arena University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy P. Papademas Cyprus University of Technology,
Limassol, Cyprus
V. Capozzi University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
K. Papadimitriou Agricultural University of Athens,
F. Fantuz Università degli Studi di Camerino,
Athens, Greece
Camerino, Italy
A. Polychroniadou Aristotle University of
B. Faye UMR SELMET, CIRAD-ES, Montpellier,
Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
France
P. Russo University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
D. Fiocco University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
E. Salimei Università degli Studi del Molise,
T. Huppertz NIZO food research, Ede, The Nether-
Campobasso, Italy
lands
N. Silanikove Agricultural Research Organization,
M. Kazou Agricultural University of Athens,
Bet Dagan, Israel
Athens, Greece
G. Spano University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
G. Leitner Kimron Veterinary Institute, Bet Dagan,
Israel E. Tsakalidou Agricultural University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
A.I. Martín-García Estación Experimental del
Zaidín (CSIC), Granada, Spain D.R. Yáñez-Ruiz Estación Experimental del Zaidín
(CSIC), Granada, Spain
S. Mattiello Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan,
Italy
vii
Preface
Strictly speaking all mammals are dairy ani- in regions around the world where the environ-
mals. However, only some of them have been ment required special adaptation and for which
domesticated. Domestication of dairy animals many of the noncow mammals are better suited.
has mainly evolved on the basis of the regular As a result, cow milk dominates global milk pro-
production of a sufficient quantity of milk to duction and represents 83% of the world’s total
cover human nutritional needs. The ability of milk production.
dairy animals themselves to adapt to specific In addition to cow milk, buffalo milk makes
geographical areas and patterns—which shape a substantial contribution at the global level,
climate conditions as well as the flora and fauna accounting for 13% of the world’s production.
diversity of a region—has also determined the The contribution of milk from goats (2.6%), sheep
prevalence of certain breeds in different regions (1.2%), and camels (0.4%) is limited at the global
of the world. This, in turn, has determined the level. For other animal species, such as horses,
evolution of local pastoral systems and prac- donkeys, and yaks, no world-scale statistics are
tices, given that livestock management is closely available but their contribution to global milk
linked to the natural resources available in dif- production is estimated to be less than 0.1%.
ferent regions. Additionally, a marginal production of reindeer
The ease of transforming milk to dairy prod- and llama milk is reported in the literature and
ucts, such as fermented milk, cheese, and butter, even some wild species, such as zebra or eland,
gradually became the foundation for local prac- are described as potential dairy animals.
tices and skills and thus of local dairy culinary However, noncow milk is considered to have
traditions in various regions around the world. huge economic and social importance in spe-
It should be stressed, however, that these oppor- cific regions where it can serve as a tool for the
tunities are often accompanied by the limitations improvement of food and economic security
of human skills, socioeconomic factors as well as and as well as to reduce poverty. On the other
religious beliefs. These limitations have histori- hand, industrialization of dairy production is
cally been the parameters that have determined increasing in many places, largely due to the
which dairy products have survived throughout growing demand for food. Some smallholders
time. may be able to take advantage of these opportu-
Although the dairy cow has been the pre- nities and operate as sustainable and profitable
dominant domesticated animal species for milk smallholder agricultural production systems.
production, sheep, goat, water buffalo, yak, Whether large numbers of smallholders will be
camel, and mare as well as other minor mamma- able to do this in a carbon-constrained global
lian species have also been domesticated. These economy and in an environment characterized
animals have been kept and bred for milk pro- by a changing climate and by increased cli-
duction not only in developed countries but also matic variability will depend on many things,
ix
x
Preface
including improved regulations, implementa- The aim of this book is to give a compiled
tion of social protection and strengthening of and renewed vision of the knowledge exist-
links to urban areas, and substantial investment ing thus far on noncow milk as well as the
in agriculture. Understanding how smallholder emerging challenges including the (a) social
systems may evolve in the future is critical and environmental aspects; (b) animal health,
if economic and food security goals are to be welfare, and nutrition; (c) quality, safety, and
achieved. analysis of milk and dairy products; (d) exist-
The significance of noncow milk is under- ing and emerging technologies for processing
lined by the fact that the International Dairy and products; and (e) nutritional aspects of
Federation organized, between 1985 and 2007, milk and dairy products. Thus the thematology
five successful symposia on sheep and goat of the book addresses a wide number of pro-
milk. Moreover, two of the most recent ones, fessional groups involved in the noncow milk
held in 2011 and 2015, expanded their thematol- sector, such as academia, milk producers, dairy
ogy to other types of noncow milk, such as buf- industry, trade associations, and government
falo, camel, donkey, yak, etc. and policy makers.
Acknowledgments
We thank all authors and coauthors for their Andrea Dierna, Megan Ball, and Billie Jean
sound contributions and excellent cooperation Fernandez for helping us tackle all editorial and
during the reviewing process. We also wish technical problems and for taking good care of
to acknowledge the valuable contribution of the production.
xi
C H A P T E R
1
Food Security and the Role of Local
Communities in Non-cow Milk
Production
B. Faye
UMR SELMET, CIRAD-ES, Montpellier, France
1. INTRODUCTION The objective of the present chapter is (i) to
assess the importance of the non-cow dairy spe-
Among the 2000 species of mammals produc- cies and of the NCM in the food security, (ii) to
ing milk, only 10 are used regularly or exception- provide short description of the farming systems
ally for providing milk to humans. Besides the producing NCM, and (iii) to discuss the role of
cow, which provides 85% of the milk produced small farmers in the production of NCM and its
in the world (FAOstat, 2015), buffalo (10.7%), use in local, national, and international markets.
goat (2.4%), sheep (1.4%), and camel (0.4%) are
the most important dairy animals. In spite of
their regular use for milk production, there is 2. THE CONTRIBUTION OF
no data regarding yak. Horse, donkey, reindeer, NON-COW MILK TO FOOD
and lama (Skenneberg, 1984; Morin et al., 1995) SECURITY
are not commonly used and thus do not change
the global statistics.
2.1 Quantitative Importance of Non-cow
While the total quantity of non-cow milk
Milk
(NCM) is a small part of the total quantity of
milk consumed in the world, non-cow dairy As a whole, NCM species provided 30.6 mil-
species provided 110 million tons of milk in lion tons of milk in 1961 (first available FAO sta-
2013 (FAOstat, 2015), notably in remotes areas. tistics). Although it comprised a relatively low
Thus the contribution of NCM to food security percentage of total milk available for human
is important, especially since it is produced by consumption, the growth of NCM is important
households in low-input farming systems, and (Faye and Konuspayeva, 2012a). In 2013 dairy
except for small ruminants, only in southern cow production was double what it was in 1961
countries. (×2.03), and NCM more than tripled (×3.64) 1961
Non-Bovine Milk and Milk Products
1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803361-6.00001-6 Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
2
1. FOOD SECURITY IN NON-COW MILK PRODUCTION
TABLE 1.1 Total Milk Production (in Million Tons), Percentage of Species Contribution, and 2013 Index Compared
to Index 100 in 1961 for Cow and Non-cow Milk
Total world milk production (in
million tons) Percentage of milk/species
Species 1961 2013 1961 2013 Index 2013 (100 in 1961)
Cow 313.6 635.6 91.1 85.1 202.7
Buffalo 17.8 80.1 5.2 10.7 448.6
Sheep 5.1 10.1 1.5 1.4 198.8
Goat 6.9 17.9 2.0 2.4 257.6
Camel 0.62 2.9 0.2 0.4 465.4
Total NCM 30.6 111.1 8.9 14.9 363.7
FAOstat, 2015.
data, with all non-cow species having higher Papua New Guinea, and Timor-Leste (goat)
growth than cow except sheep (Table 1.1). are among the countries with more than 75%
NCM production growth is higher than of milk from non-cow species. Regarding the
human population growth; NCM species pro- different species, only a negative relationship
vided 10 L of milk for 1000 inhabitants in 1961 between the percentage of goat milk and GDP/
versus 16 L in 2013. Moreover, this contribution hab is observed, confirming the role of the goat
appears more significant when specific regions as the “dairy cow of the poor” (French proverb).
are considered. The percentage of NCM is high Thus in spite of the lack of a clear relationship
in Asia (34.4%) and in Africa (25.7%) but lower between the importance of NCM and the wealth
in other continents (Table 1.2). In some regions of a country, the contribution to food security
such as West Africa or South Asia, NCM repre- is important and the use of species other than
sents almost 50% of produced milk (FAOstat, cow to provide milk should be considered not
2015). only for economic reasons, but also for cultural
The proportion of NCM appears higher in reasons.
southern countries especially in Africa and
Asia, but there is no clear evidence of a negative
2.2 Qualitative Importance of Non-cow
correlation between the percentage of NCM in
Milk
the different countries and their gross domes-
tic product/habitant (GDP/hab.) (Table 1.3). NCM is not only a substitute for cow milk—it
Although the highest percentage of milk pro- is a means for people living in specific ecosys-
duced by species other than cow (22.7 ± 28.3%) tems (eg, deserts, high mountains, swamp areas)
is observed on average in the poorest countries to have access to milk in places where dairy cow
(GDP less than 1000 USD/hab), a significant farming is problematic. Furthermore, this type
percentage (2.5 ± 6.8%) is observed in inter- of milk is linked to social habits and is often a
mediary countries (GDP 7500–15,000 USD/ part of cultural identity. For example, fermented
hab). Bangladesh (goat, buffalo, and sheep), horse milk (koumiss) in Central Asia, butter yak
Mali, Eritrea, Oman, and United Arab Emirates in the Tibetan plateau, or camel milk for Bedou-
(sheep, camel, and goat), Swaziland, Jamaica, ins are all examples of cultural uses of NCM.
TABLE 1.2 Total Milk Production (in Tons) Per Species and Percentage of NCM in the different Continents and Regions
Region Buffalo Camel Cow Goat Sheep Total NCM %NCM
Africa 2,614,500 2,722,814 34,120,566 4,184,887 2,250,650 45,893,417 11,772,851 25.7
East Africa 2,237,600 13,004,052 860,655 606,730 16,709,037 3,704,985 22.17
Mid. Africa 24,600 667,015 89,000 32,460 813,075 146,060 17.96
North Africa 2,614,500 85,300 14,633,402 1,929,251 1,111,000 20,373,453 5,740,051 28.17
South Africa 3,717,295 4125 3,721,420 4125 0.11
2
West Africa 375,314 2,098,802 1,301,856 500,460 4,276,432 2,177,630 50.92 .
T
H
America 185,227,147 592,500 42,095 185,861,742 634,595 0.3 E C
o
North America 99,666,528 99,666,528 0 0.00 N
T
R
Caribbean 1,758,271 216,984 1,975,255 216,984 10.99 Ib
u
T
Cent. America 14,687,010 155,354 14,842,364 155,354 1.05 Io
N
o
South America 69,115,338 220,162 42,095 69,377,595 262,257 0.38 F
N
o
Asia 77,290,169 205,294 177,475,135 10,653,509 4,823,340 270,447,447 92,972,312 34.4 N
-C
East Asia 3,050,000 18,564 45,750,093 382,731 1,581,226 50,782,614 5,032,521 9.91 o
w
M
Central Asia 900 17,040,768 141,331 68,429 17,251,428 210,660 1.22 IL
k
Southeast Asia 349,035 4,042,571 298,938 127,560 4,818,104 775,533 16.10 T
o
F
South Asia 73,794,517 8000 84,465,529 8,837,255 779,550 167,884,851 83,419,322 49.69 o
o
d
Western Asia 96,617 177,830 26,176,174 993,254 2,266,575 29,710,450 3,534,276 11.90 S
E
C
u
Europe 203,791 80 210,277,938 2,526,426 3,021,664 216,029,899 5,751,961 2.7 R
IT
East Europe 8728 80 72,405,226 613,417 809,957 73,837,408 1,432,182 1.94 y
North Europe 34,971,058 27,472 34,998,530 27,472 0.08
South Europe 195,063 24,679,183 1,006,632 1,935,842 27,816,720 3,137,537 11.28
West Europe 78,222,471 878,905 275,865 79,377,241 1,154,770 1.45
Oceania 28,475,109 50 28,475,159 50 0.0
3