Nutritional Quality, Physicochemical and Microbiological Properties of Camel Milk in North Sinai Governorate

Abstract

This study was aimed to evaluate the nutritional quality and compare the general physic-chemical characteristics and microbial properties of camel milk in North Sinai Governorate. The samples were collected from camel grazed on open and close pastures. Also compare the concentration of some elements, amino and fatty acids of the milk samples for both systems. The biological and caloric values were evaluated in both systems. A section of this study was intended to study some technological properties such as coagulation time and curd tension. The analytical result indicated a wide variation between the major components of the samples for both gazing systems. There were high significant differences of some physical properties i.e. specific gravity, viscosity, flow index, consistency index and density and there was insignificant difference of freezing point of milk samples of close and open pasture (P< 0.0001). The average of titratable acidity and pH value were 0.175 %, 6.62 and 0.16 %, 6.66 of close and open system respectively. All elements content expect P show high significant differences between milk of close and open pastures (P< 0.0001). All minerals concentration except Fe were higher of camel milk of open than close system. Sum of amino and fatty acids, cholesterol, biological and caloric values were higher of open than those of close system. The results of technological properties indicated that coagulation time decreased when added the rennet to camel milk which incubated with yoghurt starter at 12-15 min., the range of curd tension was 28-42 g. All samples of open were higher of aerobic count, lactic acid bacteria and moulds & yeasts than those of close system, while coliform numbers was higher in the samples of close than that of open system samples. 60 % of the examined samples were positive for Staphylococcus of both systems. All samples were tested for pathogenic bacteria which were negative for Salmonella spp., Listeria and Escherichia coli 0157:H7.

Evaluation of physicochemical properties and microbiological quality of camel milk from Egypt

“…According to Food Agriculture Organization, the value of pH in fresh camel milk is ranged between 6.5-6.7. 16 The pH value recorded in the present study was consistent with those reported in Egypt by several authors [17][18][19][20] with respective values of 6.65, 6.64, 6.6, and 6.6. In contrast, other researchers have reported lower values [21][22][23] (5.43, 5.97, and 5.87), respectively.…”

“…Our findings were nearly similar to those given by El-Ziney MG et al 40 However, several authors have reported lower levels of contamination rate. 20,35,41,42 On the contrary, a high mean count was determined by others. 29,30,33,34,37 On the other side Bassuony IN et al, 32 reported a much higher detection rate of coliforms (85.7%) out of 35 raw camel milk samples from Matrouh Governorate, Egypt.…”

“…[29][30][31][32][33][34] In contrast, a lower bacterial burden was given in other studies. 20,35,36 In fact, The TBC of camel milk has been reported with values varied from 10 2 to 10 8 cfu/ml. 29,[37][38][39] The high TCB of the tested milk samples could be likely attributed to improper handling of the samples during collection, transportation, or even during storage.…”

Some Variation Factors of Freezing Point in Camel Milk

“…The important difference between the RM and EM results could be linked to the lack of calibration with camel milk. Indeed, all the published data regarding FPD in camel milk were based on results obtained by EM [6][7][8]20] or even by using a simple thermometer [21], but never with the reference method. Moreover, none of the references regarding camel milk have specified if the used apparatus was calibrated for camel milk.…”

“…In contrast, the determination of freezing point in the camel dairy industry is relatively recent, accompanying the recent development of the camel milk sector in many camel countries [4]. Some references on FPD are available in the literature, but without using the reference method (RM) ISO 5764|IDF 108:2009 [5], and most of the time, limited in the number of samples involved [6,7], or without monitoring of the same animals [8]. Usually, the determination of FPD is included in a battery of physico-chemical analyses not necessarily focused on long-term variation factors [9].…”