{"title":"美国东北部传统牛奶和有机牛奶中的碘浓度","authors":"Nobumitsu Sakai, Ola Yetunde Esho, M. Mukai","doi":"10.3390/dairy3020017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Milk is a major source of dietary iodine in the United States. Due to a relatively low margin of safety for iodine intake, there are concerns for both deficiency and over-exposure. Iodine concentrations of raw milk samples from farms and retail milk in the Northeastern U.S. region were compared between seasons (winter vs. summer) and farming practices (conventional vs. organic). Overall, mean iodine concentration was 46.2% higher in raw milk from conventional farms vs. organic farms. An interaction effect between season and farming practices was observed. Organic raw milk had higher iodine content in the winter than in the summer (423 ± 54 μg/L vs. 273 ± 24 μg/L), whereas conventional raw milk had higher iodine content in the summer than in the winter (618 ± 75 μg/L vs. 398 ± 27 μg/L). Milk samples from conventional farms had 2.27-fold higher average iodine concentration compared to milk coming from organic farms in the summer but did not differ in the winter. Out of 68 and 98 raw milk samples originating from conventional and organic farms, 22 (32.4%) and 19 (19.4%) respectively, had iodine concentrations > 500 µg/L, reaching as high as 1928 μg/L. In contrast, the overall mean concentration of iodine in retail milk did not differ between conventional and organic milk (345 ± 23 vs. 320 ± 42 μg/L, respectively). The current study confirms dairy milk remains to be a good source of iodine to U.S. consumers. However, dairy farms should be aware of the potential adverse health effects of excess iodine intake. Careful considerations in dairy management may be necessary to not exceed the recommended level of iodine supplementation in both conventional and organic operations at the farm level—to maintain optimal iodine concentrations in retail fluid milk accessible to the consumers.","PeriodicalId":11001,"journal":{"name":"Dairy Science & Technology","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Iodine Concentrations in Conventional and Organic Milk in the Northeastern U.S.\",\"authors\":\"Nobumitsu Sakai, Ola Yetunde Esho, M. Mukai\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/dairy3020017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Milk is a major source of dietary iodine in the United States. Due to a relatively low margin of safety for iodine intake, there are concerns for both deficiency and over-exposure. Iodine concentrations of raw milk samples from farms and retail milk in the Northeastern U.S. region were compared between seasons (winter vs. summer) and farming practices (conventional vs. organic). Overall, mean iodine concentration was 46.2% higher in raw milk from conventional farms vs. organic farms. An interaction effect between season and farming practices was observed. Organic raw milk had higher iodine content in the winter than in the summer (423 ± 54 μg/L vs. 273 ± 24 μg/L), whereas conventional raw milk had higher iodine content in the summer than in the winter (618 ± 75 μg/L vs. 398 ± 27 μg/L). Milk samples from conventional farms had 2.27-fold higher average iodine concentration compared to milk coming from organic farms in the summer but did not differ in the winter. Out of 68 and 98 raw milk samples originating from conventional and organic farms, 22 (32.4%) and 19 (19.4%) respectively, had iodine concentrations > 500 µg/L, reaching as high as 1928 μg/L. In contrast, the overall mean concentration of iodine in retail milk did not differ between conventional and organic milk (345 ± 23 vs. 320 ± 42 μg/L, respectively). The current study confirms dairy milk remains to be a good source of iodine to U.S. consumers. However, dairy farms should be aware of the potential adverse health effects of excess iodine intake. Careful considerations in dairy management may be necessary to not exceed the recommended level of iodine supplementation in both conventional and organic operations at the farm level—to maintain optimal iodine concentrations in retail fluid milk accessible to the consumers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11001,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dairy Science & Technology\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dairy Science & Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/dairy3020017\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Agricultural and Biological Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dairy Science & Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/dairy3020017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
在美国,牛奶是膳食碘的主要来源。由于碘摄入的安全范围相对较低,因此存在缺乏和过度暴露的问题。对美国东北部地区农场和零售牛奶的原料奶样本的碘浓度进行了季节(冬季与夏季)和农业实践(传统与有机)之间的比较。总体而言,传统农场生产的原料奶的平均碘浓度比有机农场高46.2%。观察到季节和耕作方式之间的相互作用效应。有机原料奶冬季碘含量高于夏季(423±54 μg/L vs. 273±24 μg/L),而传统原料奶夏季碘含量高于冬季(618±75 μg/L vs. 398±27 μg/L)。在夏季,来自传统农场的牛奶样本的平均碘浓度比来自有机农场的牛奶高出2.27倍,但在冬季没有差异。68份和98份来自传统农场和有机农场的原料奶样品中,碘浓度> 500 μg/L的样品分别有22份(32.4%)和19份(19.4%),最高达1928 μg/L。相比之下,零售牛奶中碘的总体平均浓度在传统牛奶和有机牛奶之间没有差异(分别为345±23和320±42 μg/L)。目前的研究证实,对美国消费者来说,牛奶仍然是碘的良好来源。然而,奶牛场应该意识到过量摄入碘对健康的潜在不利影响。在奶业管理中,可能需要仔细考虑,在农场一级的传统和有机操作中,不要超过建议的碘补充水平,以保持消费者可获得的零售液态奶中的最佳碘浓度。
Iodine Concentrations in Conventional and Organic Milk in the Northeastern U.S.
Milk is a major source of dietary iodine in the United States. Due to a relatively low margin of safety for iodine intake, there are concerns for both deficiency and over-exposure. Iodine concentrations of raw milk samples from farms and retail milk in the Northeastern U.S. region were compared between seasons (winter vs. summer) and farming practices (conventional vs. organic). Overall, mean iodine concentration was 46.2% higher in raw milk from conventional farms vs. organic farms. An interaction effect between season and farming practices was observed. Organic raw milk had higher iodine content in the winter than in the summer (423 ± 54 μg/L vs. 273 ± 24 μg/L), whereas conventional raw milk had higher iodine content in the summer than in the winter (618 ± 75 μg/L vs. 398 ± 27 μg/L). Milk samples from conventional farms had 2.27-fold higher average iodine concentration compared to milk coming from organic farms in the summer but did not differ in the winter. Out of 68 and 98 raw milk samples originating from conventional and organic farms, 22 (32.4%) and 19 (19.4%) respectively, had iodine concentrations > 500 µg/L, reaching as high as 1928 μg/L. In contrast, the overall mean concentration of iodine in retail milk did not differ between conventional and organic milk (345 ± 23 vs. 320 ± 42 μg/L, respectively). The current study confirms dairy milk remains to be a good source of iodine to U.S. consumers. However, dairy farms should be aware of the potential adverse health effects of excess iodine intake. Careful considerations in dairy management may be necessary to not exceed the recommended level of iodine supplementation in both conventional and organic operations at the farm level—to maintain optimal iodine concentrations in retail fluid milk accessible to the consumers.