Meta-analysis of Physicochemical Characteristics in Beekeeping, Wild, and Stingless Bee Honey

Jordi Aditiya Prameswara, T. Suryati, Y. Endrawati, A. Jayanegara
{"title":"Meta-analysis of Physicochemical Characteristics in Beekeeping, Wild, and Stingless Bee Honey","authors":"Jordi Aditiya Prameswara, T. Suryati, Y. Endrawati, A. Jayanegara","doi":"10.18343/jipi.29.2.315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The two most extensively beekeeping honeybee species were Apis mellifera and A. cerana. Other species that produced honey, albeit with infrequent cultivation, include A. dorsata, A. florea, and some stingless bees, including Trigona and Melipona. Different types of honeybees were known to affect the quality of honey. Hence, this investigation aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to examine the similarities in honey quality between honey sourced from beekeeping and wild honeybees. Data analysis was performed using the OpenMEE software, facilitating the calculation of effect size and standard error. The effect size and common error data were subsequently organized into separate columns within a CSV file. This CSV file was then imported into the JASP 0.16.2 software to conduct heterogeneity and Egger tests to detect potential publication bias. The findings indicated significant disparities in the quality of honey produced by beekeeping, wild, and stingless bee honey, as determined by various parameters, including pH value, moisture, total sugar, acidity, HMF (hydroxymethylfurfural), and diastase enzyme levels (p < 0.05). According to the results of the meta-analysis, honey from beekeeping exhibited superior quality to that of wild and stingless bees. However, the average values of all parameters still adhered to the established honey quality standards set by the Standar Nasional Indonesia and the International Honey Standard (IHS). \n  \nKeywords: honey, honeybees, meta-analysis, physicochemical quality","PeriodicalId":31211,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Ilmu Pertanian Indonesia","volume":"42 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Ilmu Pertanian Indonesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18343/jipi.29.2.315","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The two most extensively beekeeping honeybee species were Apis mellifera and A. cerana. Other species that produced honey, albeit with infrequent cultivation, include A. dorsata, A. florea, and some stingless bees, including Trigona and Melipona. Different types of honeybees were known to affect the quality of honey. Hence, this investigation aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to examine the similarities in honey quality between honey sourced from beekeeping and wild honeybees. Data analysis was performed using the OpenMEE software, facilitating the calculation of effect size and standard error. The effect size and common error data were subsequently organized into separate columns within a CSV file. This CSV file was then imported into the JASP 0.16.2 software to conduct heterogeneity and Egger tests to detect potential publication bias. The findings indicated significant disparities in the quality of honey produced by beekeeping, wild, and stingless bee honey, as determined by various parameters, including pH value, moisture, total sugar, acidity, HMF (hydroxymethylfurfural), and diastase enzyme levels (p < 0.05). According to the results of the meta-analysis, honey from beekeeping exhibited superior quality to that of wild and stingless bees. However, the average values of all parameters still adhered to the established honey quality standards set by the Standar Nasional Indonesia and the International Honey Standard (IHS).   Keywords: honey, honeybees, meta-analysis, physicochemical quality
养蜂蜂蜜、野生蜂蜜和无刺蜂蜜理化特性的元分析
养蜂最广泛的两个蜜蜂品种是Apis mellifera和A. cerana。其他生产蜂蜜的蜂种包括 A. dorsata、A. florea 和一些无刺蜂,包括 Trigona 和 Melipona,尽管这些蜂种并不经常养殖。众所周知,不同种类的蜜蜂会影响蜂蜜的质量。因此,这项调查旨在进行荟萃分析,研究养蜂蜂蜜和野生蜂蜜在蜂蜜质量方面的相似性。数据分析使用 OpenMEE 软件进行,便于计算效应大小和标准误差。效应大小和共同误差数据随后被整理到 CSV 文件的不同列中。然后将 CSV 文件导入 JASP 0.16.2 软件,进行异质性和 Egger 检验,以检测潜在的发表偏倚。研究结果表明,根据各种参数,包括 pH 值、水分、总糖、酸度、HMF(羟甲基糠醛)和双酶水平(p < 0.05),养蜂蜂蜜、野生蜂蜜和无刺蜂蜜的质量存在明显差异。荟萃分析结果表明,养蜂蜂蜜的质量优于野生蜂蜜和无刺蜜蜂蜂蜜。然而,所有参数的平均值仍符合印度尼西亚国家标准和国际蜂蜜标准(IHS)规定的蜂蜜质量标准。 关键词:蜂蜜、蜜蜂、荟萃分析、理化质量
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信