Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

Full Research Article

Interplay of Management Practices and Physiological Factors Influences Camel Milk Characteristics in Tamanghasset, Southern Algeria

A
Aboubakr Essedik Bekkouche1,*
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2805-1817
H
Habiba Drici1
1Laboratoire de Recherche Sciences et Environnement: Bioressources, Géochimie-Physique Législation et Développement Socio-Economique, Department of Life Sciences, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Tamanghasset, BP 10034-Sersouf, Tamanrasset-Algeria.

ABSTRACT

Background: In the Saharan ecosystems where the harsh environmental conditions persist, camels (Camelus dromedarius) with stand these conditions through their distinctive physiological adaptation and produce milk more than other animals over extended lactation period. The present study was designed to evaluate the effect of breeding system, milked she-camel population and the hygienic status of the udder on the physicochemical and microbiological proprieties of camel milk.

Methods: 30 samples of camel milk were gathered during May and June 2024 in Tamanghasset (south Algeria), the samples originated from camels belonging to two populations and managed under two systems. After sanitary milking precautions, milk was subjected to california mastitis test (CMT), physicochemical and microbiological analysis.

Result: The results of pH, acidity, conductivity, fat, solids non-fat (SNF), total solids, density, proteins, lactose, salt, freezing point and reviable aerobic mesophilic microflora (RAMF) analysis were 6.17±0.27, 17.4±3.05o D, 5.78±0.86 mS/cm, 2.15±0.94%, 9.03±0.47%, 11.18±1.09%, 31.80±1.72, 3.28±0.18%, 4.94±0.21%, 0.69±0.05%, -0.57±0.03oC and 3.15±1.03 UFC/ml respectively. Further analysis based on the T-test and Mann-Whitney exhibit a significant effect (p<0.05) of breeding system on pH, acidity, conductivity and salt level; while only the bacterial load was significantly affected by camel population type, whereas the udder health status seems impact on the pH parameter. Complementing these findings, Principal component analysis (PCA) highlights an overall significant effect of udder health on milk composition and a moderate to slight influence of breeding system and camel population.

INTRODUCTION

In Algerian semi-arid and arid ecosystems, where the hostile climatic conditions and scarcity of food availability persist, only camels (Camelus dromedarius) have the ability, among other farm species, to produce a high amount of milk for a long period (Ansari et al., 2024), in addition to its great nutritional value and health-promoting properties (Yadav et al., 2015; Boudalia et al., 2023; Raj and Rani 2024), camel milk is  considered as a vital source for rural dwellers to face food security concerns (Abdelazez et al. 2024), which draw extensively the attention of researchers in the last years (Mohamed and Czyz, 2020). Given its nutritional and economic importance, camel milk characteristics  have been reported to vary under numerous factors related to animal characteristics (breed, age, parity, stage of lactation, season of calving, physiological stage, reproductive status (estrus, gestation and the animal’s health), nutritional and watering provisions (feed variety, feeding practices, water availability and accessibility), environmental conditions (season, climatic conditions, heat stress) and management practices and conditions like milking frequency, method of milking (hand or machine) and presence or absence of the calf (Musaad et al., 2013; Seifu 2023; Abduku and Eshetu 2024). Despite the Algerian camel population that estimated in 2021 at 417 167 heads (MADR 2021), a few official data are available about the real production because of the complexity of the field and the inaccessible nomadic populations across the steppes and Saharan regions (Harek et al., 2022; Lankri et al., 2024). Therefore, this study aims to promote this neglected vital source and spot the light on the physicochemical characteristics of camel milk in Tamanghasset, south Algeria and see to what extent it is affected by management practices and physiologicalfactors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area and sampling
 
The study was conducted in Tamanrasset, southern Algeria (1943 km from Algiers, 1320 m altitude), characterized by arid climate with 136 mm rainfall and temperatures of 36oC during the sampling’s season (Chelghoum and Belhamri 2011). The region hosts 85180 camels including 50445 she-camels (MADR, 2021). Thirty (30) milk samples were collected (May-June 2024) from local markets (intensive system, n=22) and peri-urban farms (semi-extensive system, n=8), representing Targui (n=13) and Sahraoui (n=17) populations at different lactation stages. Following hand disinfection with 70% alcohol, milk was collected directly into autoclaved glass bottles and transported to “sciences and environment” laboratory at the university of Tamanghasset within one hour using cooling boxes.
 
Samples diagnostic
 
Quality assessment covered hygienic, physicochemical, microbiological and compositional analyses. Hygienic status was evaluated using california mastitis test (CMT) following the method of Seligsohn et al. (2021), where 3-4 mL RAIDEX reagent (RAIDEX GmbH solution, Germany) was mixed with equal raw camel milk volume in CMT paddle, with horizontal circular shaking determining viscosity graded from 1 to 5 using Scandinavian scoring system (1=liquid; 5=gel formation). Furthermore, physicochemical parameters included pH and conductivity measured using digital meters (EUTECH ION 2700 for laboratory measurements and EXTECH EC 500 (Taiwan) for field measurements) and titratable acidity (TA) following Aggad et al. (2009) method: 10 mL milk mixed to 3 drops of phenolphthalein (1%) titrated with 0.1 N NaOH until persistent pink color, calculated as TA (oD) = NaOH volume (mL) × 10. In addition, microbiological analysis consisted of RAMF enumeration using plate count agar medium following SP-SDS methodology (Thomas et al. 2015), with serial dilutions in peptone water incubated for 24 h at 30oC. The milk composition analysis (total solids, fat, protein, lactose, density, salt and freezing point) was performed using an ultrasonic Milkotester (Master Eco 308, Bulgaria), although camel-specific calibration was unavailable, the analyzer provided enabled reliable analysis focusing on relative compositional differences between sample groups rather than absolute quantification. Despite the potential inaccuracies in absolute values, the bias from the calibration affects all samples uniformly safeguards the reliability of statistical relationships. This methodological consistency with prior studies showed a significance correlation, albeit modest, between estimated and reference methods in camel milk (Konuspayeva et al., 2023). All analytical measurements were conducted in triplicate on the thirty freshly collected raw camel milk samples to ensure measurement reliability.
 
Statistical analysis
 
Statistical analysis was carried out using R software (version 2023.06.01). Bacterial load was expressed as log10 values. T-test was used to compare means and examine the effect of farming system, camel population and hygienic conditions on raw milk composition. Non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney U Test and Kruskal-Wallis Test) were utilized for the non-normally distributed parameters, as well as for evaluating the effects of lactation stage and transportation on milk characteristics. The interaction of all parameters was assessed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). A significance level of 5% (p-value ≤0.05) was used as the threshold for interpreting results.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of physicochemical and microbiological analysis are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Physicochemical and microbiological analysis of raw camel milk samples collected from local cattle’s market peri-urban farms in Tamanghasset region.


 
Camel milk properties, composition and management effects
 
pH and titratable acidity
 
The pH ranged 5.53-6.72 (mean 6.17±0.27), more acidic than other Algerian regions: Oued Souf 6.34±0.11, Adrar 6.50±0.18 (Hadef et al., 2021; Boudalia et al., 2023), Morocco 6.51±0.08 (Bouhaddaoui et al. 2019) and Dubai 6.81±0.01 (Chand and Singh 2019), highlighting geographical effects. Breeding system significantly affected pH (p=0.01, a=0.05); semi-extensive systems produced more acidic milk (5.95±0.24) versus intensive systems (6.25±0.24), consistent with Mekkaoui et al. (2022). Sahraoui camels produced slightly more alkaline milk (pH 6.24±0.24) than Targui camels (pH 6.08±0.29) without significant difference. Mastitis did not affect pH values, corroborating Hadef et al. (2020). Average titratable acidity was 17.4o±3.05D, consistent with other Algerian studies (Hadef et al. 2018, 2021) and Morocco (Bouhaddaoui et al. 2019).
 
Conductivity and freezing point
 
Conductivity values fluctuated between 4.65-8.23 mS/cm (average 5.78±0.86 mS/cm), paralleling Boudalia et al. (2023) findings in Algeria (5.96 mS/cm) and Saudi Arabia 4.54±0.51 (Mohammed et al. 2022). The hygienic status showed no significant effect on conductivity, harmonizing with Hadef et al. (2020), though management system showed highly significant effect (p=0.00007, α=0.05). Freezing point of samples ranged from -0.63o to -0.50oC, relatively higher than outcomes reported by Boudalia et al. (2023) in Algeria and Elobied et al. (2015) in Sudan. Konuspayeva et al. (2023) declared freezing point sensitivity to ionic balance, attributing it to breed effect, physiological status and management system.
 
Density and total solids
 
Average density was 1.032±0.001 g/cm3, identical to South East Algerian Sahara 1.032±0.002 g/cm3 (Hadef et al. 2018) and Ethiopian camel milk 1.028 (Omer and Dol Ateye 2022). No significant effects of management system, physiological status or breed were observed, aligning with Mekkaoui et al. (2022). Total solids analysis revealed content ranging 9.00-13.30% (average 11.18±1.09%), fluctuating within the reported interval 8-15% (Atigui et al. 2023). Results aligned with Ethiopian studies (Shegaw et al. 2020) and nearby Ghardaïa-Algeria research (Hanou et al. 2016). No significant effects were observed among studied factors, suggesting seasonal and  geographical location effects (Shuiep et al. 2008; Elbashir and Elhassan 2018).
 
Fat content
 
Samples presented large fat content variation, fluctuating between 0.70-3.87% (average 2.15±0.94%). Results aligned with Chethouna et al. (2022) in Ouargla, Algeria (2.84±0.7%) and Tunisia 19.3±7.6% (Atigui et al. 2023). The three studied factors showed no significant effect on fat composition, contrasting nearby southeastern Algeria studies revealing mastitis infection significance. Results remained constant within management systems, supported by Mekkaoui et al. (2022), though Chergui et al. (2024) suggested higher fat content under intensive versus semi-intensive systems.
 
Protein, lactose and salt content
 
Protein content ranged 2.90-3.60% (average 3.28±0.18%), previously reported in southeastern and south-central Algeria by Hadef et al. (2018, 2021): 3.37±0.18% and 32.76±0.48% respectively. Results were described in African and Asian countries, including Tunisia 31.9±6.0% (Atigui et al. 2023) and Sudan 3.49±0.06% (Mustafa et al. 2021). Milk protein was independent of subclinical mastitis effect, opposing Hadef et al. (2020) findings. Lactose content fluctuated between 4.50-5.35% (average 4.94±0.21%), higher than Hadef et al. (2020) and Mekkaoui et al. (2022) results. Similar results were found in Morocco 4.98±0.71% and Sudan 4.73±0.09% (Bouhaddaoui et al. 2019; Mustafa et al. 2021). Management system and breed showed no impact on lactose content, supported by Mekkaoui et al. (2022).
       
Average salt content was 0.69±0.05%, reflecting Hadef et al. (2021) outcomes in Adrar, Algeria and Atigui et al. (2023) in Tunisia. Results were lower than southeastern Algeria reports (Hadef et al. 2018, 2020). Mineral content wasn’t affected by population or udder hygienic status, aligning with Hadef et al. (2020).
       
Lactation stage effects on physicochemical characteristics revealed no significant impact except for pH, which decreased significantly with lactation progression, confirmed by Aljumaa et al. (2012) in Saudi Arabia. However, Hadef et al. (2018) and Kraimia et al. (2024) found no direct lactation stage effect on pH. Transportation showed pH increased significantly after transport (mean less than one hour), explained by carbonic acid dissociation accelerated by heat and agitation leading to CO2 off-gas before microflora acidification begins (Ma and Barbano 2003; McSweeney and Fox 2009).
 
Bacteriological analysis
 
Bacterial enumeration on plate count agar medium ranged from 1.48 to 5.50 log10 UFC/ml with an average of 3.15±1.03 log10 UFC/ml, relatively lower than the value declared by (Boudalia et al., 2023) and (Kadri et al., 2021) in Algeria and Morocco, respectively, which could be related to milking practices and time lag between the sampling and the bacterial culture. The statistical analysis revealed no significant effect of the three factors on camel milk bacterial counts.
 
Principal component analysis
 
The first three principal components had eigenvalues greater than 10 and together explained 81.5% of the total variance (PC1: 52.3%, PC2: 16.1%, PC3: 13.1%).
       
The first PC (Fig 1) was defined by a high contribution of SNF (12.22%), Proteins (12.03%), Lactose (11.98%), Salt (11.18%), Density (10.30%), Conductivity (~9.55%) and negatively the freezing point (12.21%) representing the compositional richness. The second PC was mainly influenced by a negative correlation between acidity (15.23%), conductivity (8.97%) and strongly pH; which represent the milk’s freshness and ionic balance, which reflect signs of the potential microbial activity, for that we could considered PC2 as a proxy for milk quality and shelf-life. The third PC (Fig 2) was figured by fat, SNF and density as positive contributors, alongside a strong negative relationship with acidity highlighting the structural richness and buffering characteristics of camel milk.

Fig 1: Correlation circle of physicochemical variables contributing to principal components.



Fig 2: Variables by contribution (PC1 vs PC3) with correlation circle.


               
The PCA biplot in the figures (Fig 3), shows a moderate influence of management system (intensive vs semi-extensive) on milk composition possibly due to diet; the slight clustering exhibited in (Fig 4) demonstrate that breed variation (Targui vs Sahraoui) could have a minor impact on camel milk composition; furthermore, the Hygienic Status represented by CMT displays a clear separation in (Fig 5) reflecting a significant effect on both nutritional quality and ionic balance. 

Fig 3: PCA plot of camel milk samples colored by breeding system (intensive vs. semi-extensive).



Fig 4: PCA plot of camel milk samples colored by population (Sahraoui vs. Targui).



Fig 5: PCA plot of camel milk samples colored by CMT status (Healthy vs. Infected).

CONCLUSION

Beyond the importance of dromedary’s milk as nutritious food in pastoralist regions and its use for medical revenues proven by several researchers, the present study emphasizes the importance of milking and handling practices on physicochemical and microbiological quality of camel milk, as well as the degree of correlation between physicochemical parameters which appears to be moderately affected by the management system and the population of the milked she-camel compared to the influence of mastitis. Yet, further investigation is needed, including feeding type, watering, milking practice and routine, age and parity number effect, to assesses and promote the technological aspect of camel’s milk.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The present study was supported by the University of Tamanghasset, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, Department of Life Sciences, Laboratoire de Recherche Sciences et Environnement: Bioressources, Géochimie-Physique Législation et Développement Socio-Economique- BP 10034-Sersouf, Tamanrasset-Algeria. The authors express their gratitude to the laboratory staff, the farm owners and workers, for their assistance in providing milk and facilitating this work.
 
Disclaimers
 
The views and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of their affiliated institutions. The authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, but do not accept any liability for any direct or indirect losses resulting from the use of this content.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article. No funding or sponsorship influenced the design of the study, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

REFERENCES


  1. Abdelazez, A., Abd-elmotaal, H., Abady, G. (2024) Exploring the potential of camel milk as a functional food: Physico- chemical characteristics, bioactive components, innovative therapeutic applications and development opportunities analysis. Food Mater Res. 4: 0-0. https://doi.org/10. 48130/fmr-0024-0020.

  2. Abduku, H., Eshetu, M. (2024). Physico-chemical properties and processing characteristics of camel milk as compared with other dairy species: A review. Asian J. Dairy Food Res. 43(1): 01-07. doi: 10.18805/ajdfr.DRF-303.

  3. Aggad, H., Mahouz, F., Ammar, Y.A., Kihal, M. (2009). Evaluation de la qualité hygiénique du lait dans l’ouest algérien. Rev Med Vet (Toulouse). 160: 590-595.

  4. Aljumaa, R.S., Almutai, F.F., Ismail, E. et al. (2012). Effects of production system, breed, parity and stage of lactation on milk composition of dromedary camels in Saudi Arabia. J. Anim Vet Adv. 11: 141-147. https://doi.org/10.3923/ javaa.2012.141.147.

  5. Ansari, F., Pourjafar, H., Samakkhah, S.A., Mirzakhani, E. (2024). An overview of probiotic camel milk as a nutritional beverage: Challenges and perspectives. Food Sci. Nutr. 12: 6123-6141. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.4298.

  6. Atigui, M., Fguiri, I., Arroum, S. et al. (2023). Effect of milking routines and hygiene practices and evolution along the market value chain on raw camel milk quality in Tunisia. Ital J. Anim Sci. 22: 337-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1828051X.2023.2188883.

  7. Boudalia, S., Gueroui, Y., Zebsa, R. et al. (2023). Camel livestock in the Algerian Sahara under the context of climate change: Milk properties and livestock production practices. J Agric Food Res. 11: 100528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr. 2023.100528.

  8. Bouhaddaoui, S., Chabir, R., Errachidi, F. et al. (2019). Study of the biochemical biodiversity of camel milk. Sci World J. 2019: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2517293.

  9. Chand, D., Singh, N. (2019). Physicochemical studies of bottled camel milk and their effect on its viscosity, surface tension and conductivity. Int J. Civ Eng Technol. 10: 1093-1098.

  10. Chelghoum, Z., Belhamri, A. (2011). Analyse des proprietes thermiques des materiaux de constructions utilises dans la ville de tamanrasset. Sci Technol. 33: 47-56.

  11. Chergui, M., Gherissi, D.E., Titaouine, M. et al. (2024). Lactation traits and reproductive performances of Sahraoui female camel in two breeding systems at Algerian Sahara. Trop Anim Health Prod. 56: 70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250- 024-03902-6.

  12. Chethouna, F., Haroun, Boudjenah S., Beldi, N., Siboukeur, O. (2022). Comparative study of the physico-chemical and microbiological characteristics of raw and pasteurized camel milk. Emirates J. Food Agric. 34: 850-858. https:/ /doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.2022.v34.i10.2942.

  13. Elbashir, M.H.M., Elhassan, S.F. (2018). Seasonal effect on camel milk composition (camelus dromedaries) under traditional and intensive management systems in butana area- Sudan. Am Sci Res J Eng Technol Sci. 39: 197-205.

  14. Elobied, A.A., Osman, A.M., Abu Kashwa, S.M. et al. (2015). Effect of parity and breed on some physico-chemical components of Sudanese. Res Opin Anim Vet Sci. 5: 20-24.

  15. Hadef, K.Z., Bensadek, I., Boufeldja, W. (2021). Physico-chemical analysis and microbiological quality of raw camel milk produced by targui breed in adrar region of Algeria. South Asian J Exp Biol. 11: 190-198. https://doi.org/ 10.38150/sajeb.11(2).p190-198.

  16. Hadef, L., Aggad, H., Hamad, B. et al. (2018). Study of yield and composition of camel milk in Algeria. Sci Study Res Chem Chem Eng Biotechnol Food Ind. 19: 1-11.

  17. Hadef, L., Hamad, B., Aggad, H. (2020). Effect of subclinical mastitis on milk yield and milk composition parameters in dairy camels. Acta Biol Szeged. 63: 83-90. https://doi.org/ 10.14232/abs.2019.2.83-90.

  18. Hanou, S., Boukhemis, M., Benatallah, L. et al. (2016). Effect of ginger powder addition on fermentation kinetics, rheological properties and bacterial viability of dromedary Yogurt. Adv J. Food Sci Technol. 10: 667-673. https://doi.org/ 10.19026/ajfst.10.2213.

  19. Harek, D., El Mokhefi, M., Ikhlef, H. et al. (2022). Gene-driving management practices in the dromedary husbandry systems under arid climatic conditions in Algeria. Pastoralism. 12: 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-021-00219-z.

  20. Kadri, Z., Spitaels, F., Cnockaert, M. et al. (2021). The bacterial diversity of raw Moroccon camel milk. Int J Food Microbiol. 341: 109050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2021. 109050.

  21. Konuspayeva, G., Al-Gedan, M.M., Alzuraiq, F., Faye, B. (2023). Some variation factors of freezing point in camel milk. Animals. 13: 1657. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13101657.

  22. Kraimia, M., Abdelkader, A., Saliha, B.H., Benaissa, M.H. (2024). Factors influencing the physicochemical and mineral composition of camel milk in eastern Algeria. J. Camel Pract Res. 31: 17–24. https://doi.org/10.5958/2277- 8934.2024.00003.1.

  23. Lankri, E., Boudour, K., Belabdi, I. et al. (2024). Effect of shelf life on physicochemical and biochemical parameters of camel milk. Asian J. Dairy Food Res. 43(2): 361-367. ​doi: 10.18805/ajdfr.DRF-337.

  24. Ma, Y., Barbano, D.M. (2003). Milk pH as a function of CO2 concentration, temperature and pressure in a heat exchanger. J. Dairy Sci. 86: 3822-3830. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022- 0302(03)73989-7.

  25. MADR (2021). Statistique Agricole.

  26. McSweeney, P.L.H., Fox, P.F. (2009). Advanced Dairy Chemistry. Springer New York, New York, NY. 

  27. Mekkaoui, S., Zineb, D., Adamou, A. (2022). Impact of camel breeding system on the composition and cheese-making ability of the produced milk. Int J. Biosci. 20: 199-209. https://doi.org/10.12692/ijb/20.2.199-209.

  28. Mohamed, N., Czyz, K. (2020). Comparison of physico-chemical properties and protein profile of cow’ s milk and camel milk. J. Adv Res Sci Technol. 7: 54-61.

  29. Mohammed, M.E.A., Brima, E.I., Alasidy, A. et al. (2022). Physico- chemical properties and some mineral concentration of milk samples from different animals and altitudes. Open Chem. 20: 494-504. https://doi.org/10.1515/chem-2022- 0171.

  30. Musaad, A.M., Faye, B., Al-Mutairi, S.E. (2013). Seasonal and physiological variation of gross composition of camel milk in Saudi Arabia. Emirates J. Food Agric. 25: 618. https:/ /doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.v25i8.16095.

  31. Mustafa, A.B., Elgenaidi, A., Alkeskas, A. et al. (2021). Impact of parity order on nutritional values of camel milk in modern system. Pak J. Zool. 53: 2475-2478. https://doi.org/ 10.17582/journal.pjz/20200527190548.

  32. Omer, A.G., Dol Ateye, M. (2022). Analysis of physical and micro- biological quality of raw camel milk in the Somali regional state of Ethiopia. Online J. Anim Feed Res. 12: 362- 368. https://doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2022.49.

  33. Raj, A., Rani, S. (2024). Evaluating the efficacy of metformin and camel milk on streptozotocin-nicotinamide induced diabetic albino rats. Asian J. Dairy Food Res. doi: 10.18805/ajdfr.DR-2213.

  34. Seifu, E. (2023). Camel milk products: Innovations, limitations and opportunities. Food Prod Process Nutr. 5: 15. https://doi. org/10.1186/s43014-023-00130-7.

  35. Seligsohn, D., Younan, M., Larsen, T. et al. (2021). Detection of subclinical mastitis in camels (Camelus dromedarius) using somatic cell count, N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase and lactate dehydrogenase activity. Small Rumin Res. 204: 106512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres. 2021. 106512.

  36. Shegaw, A., Ipsen, R.H., Kurtu, M.Y. et al. (2020). Development of yogurt from camel milk using exopolysaccharide producing lactic acid bacteria. Ethiyopian J. Anim Prod. 20: 29-43.

  37. Shuiep, E.S., El Zubeir, I.E.M., El Owni, O.A.O., Musa, H.H. (2008). Influence of season and management on composition of raw camel (camelus dromedarius) milk in khartoum state, sudan. Trop Subtrop Agroecosystems. 8: 101-106.

  38. Thomas, P., Sekhar, A.C., Upreti, R. et al. (2015). Optimization of single plate-serial dilution spotting (SP-SDS) with sample anchoring as an assured method for bacterial and yeast cfu enumeration and single colony isolation from diverse samples. Biotechnol Reports. 8: 45-55. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.btre.2015.08.003.

  39. Yadav, A.K., Kumar, R., Priyadarshini, L., Singh, J. (2015). Composition and medicinal properties of camel milk: A review. Asian J Dairy Food Res. 34(2): 83-91. doi: 10.5958/0976-0563.2015.00018.4.
Published In
Asian Journal of Dairy and Food Research
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
0
Views
0
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Full Research Article

    Interplay of Management Practices and Physiological Factors Influences Camel Milk Characteristics in Tamanghasset, Southern Algeria

    A
    Aboubakr Essedik Bekkouche1,*
    https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2805-1817
    H
    Habiba Drici1
    1Laboratoire de Recherche Sciences et Environnement: Bioressources, Géochimie-Physique Législation et Développement Socio-Economique, Department of Life Sciences, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Tamanghasset, BP 10034-Sersouf, Tamanrasset-Algeria.

    ABSTRACT

    Background: In the Saharan ecosystems where the harsh environmental conditions persist, camels (Camelus dromedarius) with stand these conditions through their distinctive physiological adaptation and produce milk more than other animals over extended lactation period. The present study was designed to evaluate the effect of breeding system, milked she-camel population and the hygienic status of the udder on the physicochemical and microbiological proprieties of camel milk.

    Methods: 30 samples of camel milk were gathered during May and June 2024 in Tamanghasset (south Algeria), the samples originated from camels belonging to two populations and managed under two systems. After sanitary milking precautions, milk was subjected to california mastitis test (CMT), physicochemical and microbiological analysis.

    Result: The results of pH, acidity, conductivity, fat, solids non-fat (SNF), total solids, density, proteins, lactose, salt, freezing point and reviable aerobic mesophilic microflora (RAMF) analysis were 6.17±0.27, 17.4±3.05o D, 5.78±0.86 mS/cm, 2.15±0.94%, 9.03±0.47%, 11.18±1.09%, 31.80±1.72, 3.28±0.18%, 4.94±0.21%, 0.69±0.05%, -0.57±0.03oC and 3.15±1.03 UFC/ml respectively. Further analysis based on the T-test and Mann-Whitney exhibit a significant effect (p<0.05) of breeding system on pH, acidity, conductivity and salt level; while only the bacterial load was significantly affected by camel population type, whereas the udder health status seems impact on the pH parameter. Complementing these findings, Principal component analysis (PCA) highlights an overall significant effect of udder health on milk composition and a moderate to slight influence of breeding system and camel population.

    INTRODUCTION

    In Algerian semi-arid and arid ecosystems, where the hostile climatic conditions and scarcity of food availability persist, only camels (Camelus dromedarius) have the ability, among other farm species, to produce a high amount of milk for a long period (Ansari et al., 2024), in addition to its great nutritional value and health-promoting properties (Yadav et al., 2015; Boudalia et al., 2023; Raj and Rani 2024), camel milk is  considered as a vital source for rural dwellers to face food security concerns (Abdelazez et al. 2024), which draw extensively the attention of researchers in the last years (Mohamed and Czyz, 2020). Given its nutritional and economic importance, camel milk characteristics  have been reported to vary under numerous factors related to animal characteristics (breed, age, parity, stage of lactation, season of calving, physiological stage, reproductive status (estrus, gestation and the animal’s health), nutritional and watering provisions (feed variety, feeding practices, water availability and accessibility), environmental conditions (season, climatic conditions, heat stress) and management practices and conditions like milking frequency, method of milking (hand or machine) and presence or absence of the calf (Musaad et al., 2013; Seifu 2023; Abduku and Eshetu 2024). Despite the Algerian camel population that estimated in 2021 at 417 167 heads (MADR 2021), a few official data are available about the real production because of the complexity of the field and the inaccessible nomadic populations across the steppes and Saharan regions (Harek et al., 2022; Lankri et al., 2024). Therefore, this study aims to promote this neglected vital source and spot the light on the physicochemical characteristics of camel milk in Tamanghasset, south Algeria and see to what extent it is affected by management practices and physiologicalfactors.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Study area and sampling
     
    The study was conducted in Tamanrasset, southern Algeria (1943 km from Algiers, 1320 m altitude), characterized by arid climate with 136 mm rainfall and temperatures of 36oC during the sampling’s season (Chelghoum and Belhamri 2011). The region hosts 85180 camels including 50445 she-camels (MADR, 2021). Thirty (30) milk samples were collected (May-June 2024) from local markets (intensive system, n=22) and peri-urban farms (semi-extensive system, n=8), representing Targui (n=13) and Sahraoui (n=17) populations at different lactation stages. Following hand disinfection with 70% alcohol, milk was collected directly into autoclaved glass bottles and transported to “sciences and environment” laboratory at the university of Tamanghasset within one hour using cooling boxes.
     
    Samples diagnostic
     
    Quality assessment covered hygienic, physicochemical, microbiological and compositional analyses. Hygienic status was evaluated using california mastitis test (CMT) following the method of Seligsohn et al. (2021), where 3-4 mL RAIDEX reagent (RAIDEX GmbH solution, Germany) was mixed with equal raw camel milk volume in CMT paddle, with horizontal circular shaking determining viscosity graded from 1 to 5 using Scandinavian scoring system (1=liquid; 5=gel formation). Furthermore, physicochemical parameters included pH and conductivity measured using digital meters (EUTECH ION 2700 for laboratory measurements and EXTECH EC 500 (Taiwan) for field measurements) and titratable acidity (TA) following Aggad et al. (2009) method: 10 mL milk mixed to 3 drops of phenolphthalein (1%) titrated with 0.1 N NaOH until persistent pink color, calculated as TA (oD) = NaOH volume (mL) × 10. In addition, microbiological analysis consisted of RAMF enumeration using plate count agar medium following SP-SDS methodology (Thomas et al. 2015), with serial dilutions in peptone water incubated for 24 h at 30oC. The milk composition analysis (total solids, fat, protein, lactose, density, salt and freezing point) was performed using an ultrasonic Milkotester (Master Eco 308, Bulgaria), although camel-specific calibration was unavailable, the analyzer provided enabled reliable analysis focusing on relative compositional differences between sample groups rather than absolute quantification. Despite the potential inaccuracies in absolute values, the bias from the calibration affects all samples uniformly safeguards the reliability of statistical relationships. This methodological consistency with prior studies showed a significance correlation, albeit modest, between estimated and reference methods in camel milk (Konuspayeva et al., 2023). All analytical measurements were conducted in triplicate on the thirty freshly collected raw camel milk samples to ensure measurement reliability.
     
    Statistical analysis
     
    Statistical analysis was carried out using R software (version 2023.06.01). Bacterial load was expressed as log10 values. T-test was used to compare means and examine the effect of farming system, camel population and hygienic conditions on raw milk composition. Non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney U Test and Kruskal-Wallis Test) were utilized for the non-normally distributed parameters, as well as for evaluating the effects of lactation stage and transportation on milk characteristics. The interaction of all parameters was assessed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). A significance level of 5% (p-value ≤0.05) was used as the threshold for interpreting results.

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

    The results of physicochemical and microbiological analysis are summarized in Table 1.

    Table 1: Physicochemical and microbiological analysis of raw camel milk samples collected from local cattle’s market peri-urban farms in Tamanghasset region.


     
    Camel milk properties, composition and management effects
     
    pH and titratable acidity
     
    The pH ranged 5.53-6.72 (mean 6.17±0.27), more acidic than other Algerian regions: Oued Souf 6.34±0.11, Adrar 6.50±0.18 (Hadef et al., 2021; Boudalia et al., 2023), Morocco 6.51±0.08 (Bouhaddaoui et al. 2019) and Dubai 6.81±0.01 (Chand and Singh 2019), highlighting geographical effects. Breeding system significantly affected pH (p=0.01, a=0.05); semi-extensive systems produced more acidic milk (5.95±0.24) versus intensive systems (6.25±0.24), consistent with Mekkaoui et al. (2022). Sahraoui camels produced slightly more alkaline milk (pH 6.24±0.24) than Targui camels (pH 6.08±0.29) without significant difference. Mastitis did not affect pH values, corroborating Hadef et al. (2020). Average titratable acidity was 17.4o±3.05D, consistent with other Algerian studies (Hadef et al. 2018, 2021) and Morocco (Bouhaddaoui et al. 2019).
     
    Conductivity and freezing point
     
    Conductivity values fluctuated between 4.65-8.23 mS/cm (average 5.78±0.86 mS/cm), paralleling Boudalia et al. (2023) findings in Algeria (5.96 mS/cm) and Saudi Arabia 4.54±0.51 (Mohammed et al. 2022). The hygienic status showed no significant effect on conductivity, harmonizing with Hadef et al. (2020), though management system showed highly significant effect (p=0.00007, α=0.05). Freezing point of samples ranged from -0.63o to -0.50oC, relatively higher than outcomes reported by Boudalia et al. (2023) in Algeria and Elobied et al. (2015) in Sudan. Konuspayeva et al. (2023) declared freezing point sensitivity to ionic balance, attributing it to breed effect, physiological status and management system.
     
    Density and total solids
     
    Average density was 1.032±0.001 g/cm3, identical to South East Algerian Sahara 1.032±0.002 g/cm3 (Hadef et al. 2018) and Ethiopian camel milk 1.028 (Omer and Dol Ateye 2022). No significant effects of management system, physiological status or breed were observed, aligning with Mekkaoui et al. (2022). Total solids analysis revealed content ranging 9.00-13.30% (average 11.18±1.09%), fluctuating within the reported interval 8-15% (Atigui et al. 2023). Results aligned with Ethiopian studies (Shegaw et al. 2020) and nearby Ghardaïa-Algeria research (Hanou et al. 2016). No significant effects were observed among studied factors, suggesting seasonal and  geographical location effects (Shuiep et al. 2008; Elbashir and Elhassan 2018).
     
    Fat content
     
    Samples presented large fat content variation, fluctuating between 0.70-3.87% (average 2.15±0.94%). Results aligned with Chethouna et al. (2022) in Ouargla, Algeria (2.84±0.7%) and Tunisia 19.3±7.6% (Atigui et al. 2023). The three studied factors showed no significant effect on fat composition, contrasting nearby southeastern Algeria studies revealing mastitis infection significance. Results remained constant within management systems, supported by Mekkaoui et al. (2022), though Chergui et al. (2024) suggested higher fat content under intensive versus semi-intensive systems.
     
    Protein, lactose and salt content
     
    Protein content ranged 2.90-3.60% (average 3.28±0.18%), previously reported in southeastern and south-central Algeria by Hadef et al. (2018, 2021): 3.37±0.18% and 32.76±0.48% respectively. Results were described in African and Asian countries, including Tunisia 31.9±6.0% (Atigui et al. 2023) and Sudan 3.49±0.06% (Mustafa et al. 2021). Milk protein was independent of subclinical mastitis effect, opposing Hadef et al. (2020) findings. Lactose content fluctuated between 4.50-5.35% (average 4.94±0.21%), higher than Hadef et al. (2020) and Mekkaoui et al. (2022) results. Similar results were found in Morocco 4.98±0.71% and Sudan 4.73±0.09% (Bouhaddaoui et al. 2019; Mustafa et al. 2021). Management system and breed showed no impact on lactose content, supported by Mekkaoui et al. (2022).
           
    Average salt content was 0.69±0.05%, reflecting Hadef et al. (2021) outcomes in Adrar, Algeria and Atigui et al. (2023) in Tunisia. Results were lower than southeastern Algeria reports (Hadef et al. 2018, 2020). Mineral content wasn’t affected by population or udder hygienic status, aligning with Hadef et al. (2020).
           
    Lactation stage effects on physicochemical characteristics revealed no significant impact except for pH, which decreased significantly with lactation progression, confirmed by Aljumaa et al. (2012) in Saudi Arabia. However, Hadef et al. (2018) and Kraimia et al. (2024) found no direct lactation stage effect on pH. Transportation showed pH increased significantly after transport (mean less than one hour), explained by carbonic acid dissociation accelerated by heat and agitation leading to CO2 off-gas before microflora acidification begins (Ma and Barbano 2003; McSweeney and Fox 2009).
     
    Bacteriological analysis
     
    Bacterial enumeration on plate count agar medium ranged from 1.48 to 5.50 log10 UFC/ml with an average of 3.15±1.03 log10 UFC/ml, relatively lower than the value declared by (Boudalia et al., 2023) and (Kadri et al., 2021) in Algeria and Morocco, respectively, which could be related to milking practices and time lag between the sampling and the bacterial culture. The statistical analysis revealed no significant effect of the three factors on camel milk bacterial counts.
     
    Principal component analysis
     
    The first three principal components had eigenvalues greater than 10 and together explained 81.5% of the total variance (PC1: 52.3%, PC2: 16.1%, PC3: 13.1%).
           
    The first PC (Fig 1) was defined by a high contribution of SNF (12.22%), Proteins (12.03%), Lactose (11.98%), Salt (11.18%), Density (10.30%), Conductivity (~9.55%) and negatively the freezing point (12.21%) representing the compositional richness. The second PC was mainly influenced by a negative correlation between acidity (15.23%), conductivity (8.97%) and strongly pH; which represent the milk’s freshness and ionic balance, which reflect signs of the potential microbial activity, for that we could considered PC2 as a proxy for milk quality and shelf-life. The third PC (Fig 2) was figured by fat, SNF and density as positive contributors, alongside a strong negative relationship with acidity highlighting the structural richness and buffering characteristics of camel milk.

    Fig 1: Correlation circle of physicochemical variables contributing to principal components.



    Fig 2: Variables by contribution (PC1 vs PC3) with correlation circle.


                   
    The PCA biplot in the figures (Fig 3), shows a moderate influence of management system (intensive vs semi-extensive) on milk composition possibly due to diet; the slight clustering exhibited in (Fig 4) demonstrate that breed variation (Targui vs Sahraoui) could have a minor impact on camel milk composition; furthermore, the Hygienic Status represented by CMT displays a clear separation in (Fig 5) reflecting a significant effect on both nutritional quality and ionic balance. 

    Fig 3: PCA plot of camel milk samples colored by breeding system (intensive vs. semi-extensive).



    Fig 4: PCA plot of camel milk samples colored by population (Sahraoui vs. Targui).



    Fig 5: PCA plot of camel milk samples colored by CMT status (Healthy vs. Infected).

    CONCLUSION

    Beyond the importance of dromedary’s milk as nutritious food in pastoralist regions and its use for medical revenues proven by several researchers, the present study emphasizes the importance of milking and handling practices on physicochemical and microbiological quality of camel milk, as well as the degree of correlation between physicochemical parameters which appears to be moderately affected by the management system and the population of the milked she-camel compared to the influence of mastitis. Yet, further investigation is needed, including feeding type, watering, milking practice and routine, age and parity number effect, to assesses and promote the technological aspect of camel’s milk.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

    The present study was supported by the University of Tamanghasset, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, Department of Life Sciences, Laboratoire de Recherche Sciences et Environnement: Bioressources, Géochimie-Physique Législation et Développement Socio-Economique- BP 10034-Sersouf, Tamanrasset-Algeria. The authors express their gratitude to the laboratory staff, the farm owners and workers, for their assistance in providing milk and facilitating this work.
     
    Disclaimers
     
    The views and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of their affiliated institutions. The authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, but do not accept any liability for any direct or indirect losses resulting from the use of this content.

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST

    The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article. No funding or sponsorship influenced the design of the study, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

    REFERENCES


    1. Abdelazez, A., Abd-elmotaal, H., Abady, G. (2024) Exploring the potential of camel milk as a functional food: Physico- chemical characteristics, bioactive components, innovative therapeutic applications and development opportunities analysis. Food Mater Res. 4: 0-0. https://doi.org/10. 48130/fmr-0024-0020.

    2. Abduku, H., Eshetu, M. (2024). Physico-chemical properties and processing characteristics of camel milk as compared with other dairy species: A review. Asian J. Dairy Food Res. 43(1): 01-07. doi: 10.18805/ajdfr.DRF-303.

    3. Aggad, H., Mahouz, F., Ammar, Y.A., Kihal, M. (2009). Evaluation de la qualité hygiénique du lait dans l’ouest algérien. Rev Med Vet (Toulouse). 160: 590-595.

    4. Aljumaa, R.S., Almutai, F.F., Ismail, E. et al. (2012). Effects of production system, breed, parity and stage of lactation on milk composition of dromedary camels in Saudi Arabia. J. Anim Vet Adv. 11: 141-147. https://doi.org/10.3923/ javaa.2012.141.147.

    5. Ansari, F., Pourjafar, H., Samakkhah, S.A., Mirzakhani, E. (2024). An overview of probiotic camel milk as a nutritional beverage: Challenges and perspectives. Food Sci. Nutr. 12: 6123-6141. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.4298.

    6. Atigui, M., Fguiri, I., Arroum, S. et al. (2023). Effect of milking routines and hygiene practices and evolution along the market value chain on raw camel milk quality in Tunisia. Ital J. Anim Sci. 22: 337-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1828051X.2023.2188883.

    7. Boudalia, S., Gueroui, Y., Zebsa, R. et al. (2023). Camel livestock in the Algerian Sahara under the context of climate change: Milk properties and livestock production practices. J Agric Food Res. 11: 100528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr. 2023.100528.

    8. Bouhaddaoui, S., Chabir, R., Errachidi, F. et al. (2019). Study of the biochemical biodiversity of camel milk. Sci World J. 2019: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2517293.

    9. Chand, D., Singh, N. (2019). Physicochemical studies of bottled camel milk and their effect on its viscosity, surface tension and conductivity. Int J. Civ Eng Technol. 10: 1093-1098.

    10. Chelghoum, Z., Belhamri, A. (2011). Analyse des proprietes thermiques des materiaux de constructions utilises dans la ville de tamanrasset. Sci Technol. 33: 47-56.

    11. Chergui, M., Gherissi, D.E., Titaouine, M. et al. (2024). Lactation traits and reproductive performances of Sahraoui female camel in two breeding systems at Algerian Sahara. Trop Anim Health Prod. 56: 70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250- 024-03902-6.

    12. Chethouna, F., Haroun, Boudjenah S., Beldi, N., Siboukeur, O. (2022). Comparative study of the physico-chemical and microbiological characteristics of raw and pasteurized camel milk. Emirates J. Food Agric. 34: 850-858. https:/ /doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.2022.v34.i10.2942.

    13. Elbashir, M.H.M., Elhassan, S.F. (2018). Seasonal effect on camel milk composition (camelus dromedaries) under traditional and intensive management systems in butana area- Sudan. Am Sci Res J Eng Technol Sci. 39: 197-205.

    14. Elobied, A.A., Osman, A.M., Abu Kashwa, S.M. et al. (2015). Effect of parity and breed on some physico-chemical components of Sudanese. Res Opin Anim Vet Sci. 5: 20-24.

    15. Hadef, K.Z., Bensadek, I., Boufeldja, W. (2021). Physico-chemical analysis and microbiological quality of raw camel milk produced by targui breed in adrar region of Algeria. South Asian J Exp Biol. 11: 190-198. https://doi.org/ 10.38150/sajeb.11(2).p190-198.

    16. Hadef, L., Aggad, H., Hamad, B. et al. (2018). Study of yield and composition of camel milk in Algeria. Sci Study Res Chem Chem Eng Biotechnol Food Ind. 19: 1-11.

    17. Hadef, L., Hamad, B., Aggad, H. (2020). Effect of subclinical mastitis on milk yield and milk composition parameters in dairy camels. Acta Biol Szeged. 63: 83-90. https://doi.org/ 10.14232/abs.2019.2.83-90.

    18. Hanou, S., Boukhemis, M., Benatallah, L. et al. (2016). Effect of ginger powder addition on fermentation kinetics, rheological properties and bacterial viability of dromedary Yogurt. Adv J. Food Sci Technol. 10: 667-673. https://doi.org/ 10.19026/ajfst.10.2213.

    19. Harek, D., El Mokhefi, M., Ikhlef, H. et al. (2022). Gene-driving management practices in the dromedary husbandry systems under arid climatic conditions in Algeria. Pastoralism. 12: 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-021-00219-z.

    20. Kadri, Z., Spitaels, F., Cnockaert, M. et al. (2021). The bacterial diversity of raw Moroccon camel milk. Int J Food Microbiol. 341: 109050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2021. 109050.

    21. Konuspayeva, G., Al-Gedan, M.M., Alzuraiq, F., Faye, B. (2023). Some variation factors of freezing point in camel milk. Animals. 13: 1657. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13101657.

    22. Kraimia, M., Abdelkader, A., Saliha, B.H., Benaissa, M.H. (2024). Factors influencing the physicochemical and mineral composition of camel milk in eastern Algeria. J. Camel Pract Res. 31: 17–24. https://doi.org/10.5958/2277- 8934.2024.00003.1.

    23. Lankri, E., Boudour, K., Belabdi, I. et al. (2024). Effect of shelf life on physicochemical and biochemical parameters of camel milk. Asian J. Dairy Food Res. 43(2): 361-367. ​doi: 10.18805/ajdfr.DRF-337.

    24. Ma, Y., Barbano, D.M. (2003). Milk pH as a function of CO2 concentration, temperature and pressure in a heat exchanger. J. Dairy Sci. 86: 3822-3830. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022- 0302(03)73989-7.

    25. MADR (2021). Statistique Agricole.

    26. McSweeney, P.L.H., Fox, P.F. (2009). Advanced Dairy Chemistry. Springer New York, New York, NY. 

    27. Mekkaoui, S., Zineb, D., Adamou, A. (2022). Impact of camel breeding system on the composition and cheese-making ability of the produced milk. Int J. Biosci. 20: 199-209. https://doi.org/10.12692/ijb/20.2.199-209.

    28. Mohamed, N., Czyz, K. (2020). Comparison of physico-chemical properties and protein profile of cow’ s milk and camel milk. J. Adv Res Sci Technol. 7: 54-61.

    29. Mohammed, M.E.A., Brima, E.I., Alasidy, A. et al. (2022). Physico- chemical properties and some mineral concentration of milk samples from different animals and altitudes. Open Chem. 20: 494-504. https://doi.org/10.1515/chem-2022- 0171.

    30. Musaad, A.M., Faye, B., Al-Mutairi, S.E. (2013). Seasonal and physiological variation of gross composition of camel milk in Saudi Arabia. Emirates J. Food Agric. 25: 618. https:/ /doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.v25i8.16095.

    31. Mustafa, A.B., Elgenaidi, A., Alkeskas, A. et al. (2021). Impact of parity order on nutritional values of camel milk in modern system. Pak J. Zool. 53: 2475-2478. https://doi.org/ 10.17582/journal.pjz/20200527190548.

    32. Omer, A.G., Dol Ateye, M. (2022). Analysis of physical and micro- biological quality of raw camel milk in the Somali regional state of Ethiopia. Online J. Anim Feed Res. 12: 362- 368. https://doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2022.49.

    33. Raj, A., Rani, S. (2024). Evaluating the efficacy of metformin and camel milk on streptozotocin-nicotinamide induced diabetic albino rats. Asian J. Dairy Food Res. doi: 10.18805/ajdfr.DR-2213.

    34. Seifu, E. (2023). Camel milk products: Innovations, limitations and opportunities. Food Prod Process Nutr. 5: 15. https://doi. org/10.1186/s43014-023-00130-7.

    35. Seligsohn, D., Younan, M., Larsen, T. et al. (2021). Detection of subclinical mastitis in camels (Camelus dromedarius) using somatic cell count, N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase and lactate dehydrogenase activity. Small Rumin Res. 204: 106512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres. 2021. 106512.

    36. Shegaw, A., Ipsen, R.H., Kurtu, M.Y. et al. (2020). Development of yogurt from camel milk using exopolysaccharide producing lactic acid bacteria. Ethiyopian J. Anim Prod. 20: 29-43.

    37. Shuiep, E.S., El Zubeir, I.E.M., El Owni, O.A.O., Musa, H.H. (2008). Influence of season and management on composition of raw camel (camelus dromedarius) milk in khartoum state, sudan. Trop Subtrop Agroecosystems. 8: 101-106.

    38. Thomas, P., Sekhar, A.C., Upreti, R. et al. (2015). Optimization of single plate-serial dilution spotting (SP-SDS) with sample anchoring as an assured method for bacterial and yeast cfu enumeration and single colony isolation from diverse samples. Biotechnol Reports. 8: 45-55. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.btre.2015.08.003.

    39. Yadav, A.K., Kumar, R., Priyadarshini, L., Singh, J. (2015). Composition and medicinal properties of camel milk: A review. Asian J Dairy Food Res. 34(2): 83-91. doi: 10.5958/0976-0563.2015.00018.4.
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Asian Journal of Dairy and Food Research

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)