Evaluation of the physicochemical and sensory properties of yogurt produced from camel and cow milk
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5219/scifood.75Keywords:
camel milk, cow milk, blended yogurt production, physicochemical properties, sensory evaluationAbstract
This study investigates the feasibility and quality outcomes of producing yogurt from various proportions of dromedary camel (Camelus dromedarius) and zebu cow (Bos indicus) milk. Six treatment formulations were prepared: T1 (90% camel, 10% cow), T2 (80% camel, 20% cow), T3 (70% camel, 30% cow), T4 (60% camel, 40% cow), T5 (50% camel, 50% cow), and a control (100% cow milk). A completely randomized design was employed to assess the physicochemical properties and sensory acceptability of the resulting yogurt. The analysis was done according to standard methods for the examination of foods. The blending ratios significantly influenced yogurt properties, including pH (5.32–5.79 in raw milk vs. 4.25–4.48 in yogurt), titratable acidity (1.301–1.398% in milk vs. 1.317–1.412% in yogurt), and specific gravity (1.021–1.039 in milk vs. 1.025–1.048 in yogurt). Nutritional composition varied across treatments, with moisture content ranging from 81.05% to 83.40%, fat content from 3.53% to 4.20%, protein content from 4.14% to 4.42%, lactose content from 4.49% to 5.34%, and ash content from 1.55% to 1.64%. Sensory evaluation indicated that panelists preferred treatments T1, T2, and T5. The findings demonstrate that blending camel milk with cow milk can produce acceptable yogurt products with distinct physicochemical and sensory profiles, thereby offering a viable strategy for enhancing the utilization of camel milk in dairy processing.
References
1. Faye, B. (2015). Role, distribution and perspective of camel breeding in the third millennium economies. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, 27(4), 318. https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.v27i4.19906
2. Claeys, W. L., Verraes, C., Cardoen, S., De Block, J., Huyghebaert, A., Raes, K., & Herman, L. (2014). Consumption of raw or heated milk from different species: An evaluation of the nutritional and potential health benefits. Food Control, 42, 188–201. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.01.045
3. Al-Otaibi, M., & El-Demerdash, H. (2013). Nutritive value and characterization properties of fermented camel milk fortified with some date palm products: Chemical, bacteriological, and sensory properties. International Journal of Nutrition and Food Science, 2(4), 174–180. Science Publishing Group. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnfs.20130204.13
4. Farah, Z., Mollet, M., Younan, M., & Dahir, R. (2007). Camel dairy in Somalia: Limiting factors and development potential. Livestock Science, 110(1–2), 187–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.12.010
5. Abrhaley, A., & Leta, S. (2018). Medicinal value of camel milk and meat. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 46(1), 552–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2017.1357562
6. Hammam, A. R. A. (2019). Compositional and therapeutic properties of camel milk: A review. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, 31(3), 148–152. United Arab Emirates University. https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.2019.v31.i3.1919
7. Ibrahem, S. A., & El Zubeir, I. E. M. (2016). Processing, composition and sensory characteristic of yogurt made from camel milk and camel-sheep milk mixtures. Small Ruminant Research, 136, 109–112. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2016.01.014
8. Al-Zoreky, N. S., & Al-Otaibi, M. M. (2015). Suitability of camel milk for making yogurt. Food Science and Biotechnology, 24(2), 601–606. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-015-0078-z
9. Galeboe, O., Seifu, E., & Sekwati-Monang, B. (2018). Production of camel milk yoghurt: physicochemical and microbiological quality and consumer acceptability. International Journal of Food Studies, 7(2), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.7455/ijfs/7.2.2018.a5
10. Hashim, I. B., Khalil, A. H., & Habib, H. (2009). Quality and acceptability of a set type yogurt made from camel milk. Journal of Dairy Science, 92(3), 857–862. American Dairy Science Association. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1408
11. Chye, F. Y., Abdullah, A., & Ayob, M. K. (2004). Bacteriological quality and safety of raw milk in Malaysia. Food Microbiology, 21(5), 535–541. https://citation.doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2003.11.007
12. Steegmans, M., Iliaens, S., & Hoebregs, H. (2004). Enzymatic, Spectrophotometric Determination of Glucose, Fructose, Sucrose, and Inulin/Oligofructose in Foods. Journal of AOAC INTERNATIONAL, 87(5), 1200–1207. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/87.5.1200
13. Omore, A., & Staal, S. J. (2009). Milk testing and payment systems for producers in developing countries: Lessons learned. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.92815
14. El Zubeir, I. E. M., & Jabbar, M. A. (2008). Fresh camel milk properties and processing potential. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 20(5), Article 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.11.013
15. Park, Y. W. (2007). Rheological characteristics of goat and sheep milk. Small Ruminant Research, 68(1–2), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2006.09.015
16. Yilma, Z., & Faye, B. (2006). Handling and microbial load of cow’s milk and fermented milk in southern Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 18(12). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.09.010
17. Khalifa, S. A., & Al Haj, O. A. (2012). Physicochemical and sensory properties of yogurt made from camel and cow milk blends. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, 24(3), 209–213. https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.v24i3.14680
18. Shamsia, S. M. (2022). Physicochemical properties and microbial safety of camel and cow milk blends. Agriculture, 12(2), 136. MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12020136
19. Bouteille, R., Gaudet, M., Lecanu, B., & This, H. (2013). Monitoring lactic acid production during milk fermentation by in situ quantitative proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Journal of Dairy Science, 96(4), 2071–2080. American Dairy Science Association. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6092
20. Kučerová, J., Kameník, J., & Buňka, F. (2016). Microbiological quality of raw cow’s milk from vending machines. Potravinarstvo Slovak Journal of Food Sciences, 10(1), 566–573. Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra. https://doi.org/10.5219/566
21. Belay, D., Bikes, D., Dagnachew, E., Tsegaye, A., Alem, G., and Zenawi, H. (2023). Quality assessment of raw and pasteurized milk in Gondar city, Northwest Ethiopia: A laboratory-based cross-sectional study. Heliyon, e14202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14202
22. McSweeney, P. L. H., & Fox, P. F. (Eds.). (2013). Advanced Dairy Chemistry. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4714-6.
23. Hanuš, O., Vyletělová, M., Křížová, L., Kopecký, J., & Jedelská, R. (2016). Comparison of total bacterial count (TBC) in bulk tank raw cow’s milk and vending machine milk. International Dairy Journal, 61, 20–24. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2016.06.008
24. Kumar, P., & Mishra, H. N. (2004). Yogurt fortified with probiotic cultures and fruit pulp: Physicochemical and sensory properties. International Journal of Dairy Technology, 57(4), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0307.2004.00159.x
25. Ait El Alia, O., Zine-Eddine, Y., Chaji, S., Souhassou, S., Kzaiber, F., Oussama, A., & Boutoial, K. (2023). Physicochemical and sensory characterization of camel milk yogurt enriched with persimmon (Diospyros kaki) fruit. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Technologia Alimentaria, 22(3), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.17306/J.AFS.2023.1152
26. Ho, T. M., Zou, Z., & Bansal, N. (2022). Camel milk: A review of its nutritional value, heat stability, and potential food products. Food Research International, 153, 110870. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110870
27. Selda, B., Bengisu, D., & Ömer, C. Ö. (2019). A study on mixing camel milk with cow, sheep, and goat milk in different proportions in yoghurt production. Turkish Journal of Agriculture – Food Science and Technology, 7(12), 2095–2102. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v7i12.2095-2102.2823
28. Haftu Kebede Sebho, and Degnet Hailemeskel. (2018). Determination of Adulteration and Chemical Composition of Raw Milk Sold in Hossana Town, South Ethiopia. Journal of Dairy & Veterinary Sciences, 6(5), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.19080/jdvs.2018.06.555699
29. Alina, B., & Kayanush, A. (2021). Physicochemical and microbiological characteristics of camel milk yogurt as influenced by monk fruit sweetener. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(2), 1484–1493. American Dairy Science Association. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-18842
30. Alaa, H. I. (2018). Impact of hydrolyzed lactose by β-galactosidase enzyme on the physicochemical and organoleptic properties of fermented camel milk. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, 30(9), 778–790. United Arab Emirates University. https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.2018.v30.i9.1801
31. Amirdivani, S., & Baba, A. S. (2011). Changes in yogurt fermentation characteristics, and antioxidant potential and in vitro inhibition of angiotensin I converting enzyme upon the inclusion of peppermint, dill and basil. LWT – Food Science and Technology, 44(6), 1458–1464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2011.01.019
32. Öztürk, M., & Can, A. (2024). Effect of Emulsifying Salts on Texture and Sensory Properties of Reduced Fat Kaymak. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 12(2), 284–289. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v12i2.284-289.6659
33. Rogers, L. (2018). Post-screening/initial/introductory training of sensory panels. In Sensory panel management: A practical handbook for recruitment, training and performance. Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101001-3.00006-9
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Tadewos Hadero Medalcho (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
This license permits non-commercial use, sharing, distribution, and reproduction of the work in any medium or format, provided that:
-
appropriate credit is given to the author(s) and the original publication in Scifood,
-
a link to the license is provided,
-
the work is not modified, adapted, or transformed.
